JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Canadian former PM says let the others do a carbon tax and conservatives will win every province and the nation

Skeptics are winning

Flag of Canada.
Stephen Harper must have watched the Tony Abbott win, the Trump win, and the Doug Ford win in Ontario. He gets the message. When will Australian conservatives? Fully 48% of Australian’s are happy to pull out of Paris. Plus 14% more are undecided, there for the taking – convince them.

Trudeau’s aggressive climate action plan appears dead

Trudeau’s Tough Climate Polices Face a Mounting Backlash

Bloomberg, Christopher Flavelle  and Josh Wingrove

As that [carbon] price is about to take effect, growing opposition has put Trudeau on the defensive and has provincial governments rolling back other measures, raising questions about the appetite of this oil-exporting country to tackle climate change.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, said Thursday it would join a legal challenge against Trudeau’s carbon pricing. Polls suggest Alberta, the center of Canada’s oil and gas industry, will soon elect a government that opposes the plan. And Trudeau’s own chances of reelection next year have fallen, as his opponents seize on public resistance to carbon pricing.

Trudeau’s carbon tax looks pretty much dead now that most provinces are out

Map, Canadian Provinces.

Click to enlarge

Financial Post, Jim Karahalios

How quickly things have changed. It seems hard to believe now, but just over a year ago, nine provinces agreed to Trudeau’s plan to usurp provincial jurisdiction and mandate a national carbon tax. At the time, only Saskatchewan opposed the Trudeau carbon-tax grab.

This week, going into the meeting of the premiers, the number of provinces supporting the Trudeau carbon tax looks like it’s down to five — or maybe even four. Soon it could be down to three.

Things are looking so bleak that Ian Brodie, onetime chief of staff to former prime minister Stephen Harper, stated on Twitter recently: “The carbon tax is politically dead and won’t survive the end of (the) Trudeau prime ministership. Everyone knows this but not everyone will admit it.”

What a difference a year makes. It wasn’t long ago that the pundits and so-called experts said a carbon tax was unstoppable in Canada.

 Electricity prices doubled in Ontario thanks to their pursuit of renewables. Power prices have gone from 5.5c a KWh in 2006 to 11c KWh in 2016.  (Read and weep Australians who pay 26c/KWh or more. Those costs are directly comparable, 1 CAD pretty much equals 1 AUD).

Ontario has now joined Saskatchewan in legal opposition to the carbon tax. “Ontario Premier Doug Ford joined Scott Moe in challenging the tax, arguing it will make life unaffordable for families and risk thousands of jobs.”

Canadians are sick of high electricity prices, and carbon taxes and former PM Stephen Harper says any conservative can win “on that issue alone”:

Support for Trudeau’s Liberal Party has fallen, putting it in a rough tie with the rival Conservative Party. Trudeau’s chief opponent in next year’s federal election, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer, has said one of the first things he will do as prime minister is eliminate the carbon tax.

Stephen Harper, the Conservative who governed Canada from 2006 to 2015, also sees a political opening. “Let the other guys do a carbon tax because we can all win the next federal and provincial elections on that issue alone,” he said in a recent closed-door speech, as reported by Maclean’s magazine.

How big was that Ontario win– the ruling greener Liberals were crushed, losing 48 seats and even official party status

I’ve never seen a win and wipe-out as big as the June 7 Ontario elections. Mark it up in the history books. The Conservatives went from 27 seats to 76. The Liberals went from 55 seats to just 7. They can fit their MP’s in a mini-van. It was their worst result in 161 years. The third party is now The Opposition. Seismic is the word.

Ontario’s election last week was a humiliating and crushing defeat for Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, which went from being in government to losing official party status overnight. Peter Shawn Taylor wrote in the Financial Post on Tuesday that the election was a revolt over high energy prices caused by poor government policy.     — IPA Newsletter

UPDATE: To clarify It was specifically Kathleen Wynne which suffered the crushing defeat (not Justin Trudeau). From reader Joey: Kathleen Wynne was the liberal premier (and was leader of the Ontario provincial liberal party) that conclusively lost the election (she has subsequently resigned as party leader). The federal and provincial liberal parties are affiliated but have different leaders. Justin Trudeau is the federal premier (and leader of the federal liberal party). There is a reasonable chance that the federal liberals could lose the upcoming federal election next year. Then the carbon tax will be truly dead.

Just some of those policies that the voters wanted:

  • Corporate income tax to be reduced from 11.5% to 10.5%
  • Phase out income tax entirely for minimum-wage earners but cancel the $1 increase to minimum wage slated for 2019
  • Repeal the present cap and trade program
  • Oppose federally mandated carbon pricing
  • Reduce income tax rates
  • Reduce the small business income tax rate

As Al in Cranbrook BC says: “Jason Kenney’s Conservatives in Alberta, by every indication, will demolish the NDP (socialist) government in 2019.”

It’s hard to believe, but voters don’t seem to want to pay more for electricity to change the weather in 2100 by an amount too small to measure.

Someone tell our MP’s and get us a new P.M., or an old one, any one that is actually not centre left.

Happy to hear from more Canadians.

A populist skeptical rise,
Could give leaders some shock and surprise,
Making governments fall,
If they didn’t play ball,
And cut warmists and Greens down to size.
–Ruairi

h/t Stefan L, Pat, Al in Cranbrook BC.

Flag: E Pluribus Anthony Wikimedia  Map: Credit E Pluribus Anthony, Wikimedia

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (80 votes cast)
Canadian former PM says let the others do a carbon tax and conservatives will win every province and the nation, 9.3 out of 10 based on 80 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y8dj77q3

160 comments to Canadian former PM says let the others do a carbon tax and conservatives will win every province and the nation

  • #

    Across the world, the political left has gone completely off the rails and their insanity is reinforced by a compliant media that prefers biased alarmism over truth and justice. The eminent danger is that this has transcended climate science, which is ultimately self correcting, and now affects the many other politically controversial topics that are not.

    460

    • #
      Spetzer86

      Science may be self-correcting. Climate science appears to have the self-correcting properties of a large rock falling from outer space. It just goes faster and the discussion gets hotter until (hopefully) it just goes BOOM!

      180

      • #

        It will definitely go BOOM and the longer it takes, the bigger the bang. At least a rock from space has a theoretical terminal velocity and doesn’t gain mass as it falls. The kind of junk science used to support CAGW is unsustainable and I don’t think it will take the centuries it took for the church to admit its self centrism driven scientific mistakes.

        131

    • #

      All of this reminds me of Socialism. Those who ardently believe in Socialism think it hasn’t worked because it hasn’t been done correctly, but it’s delivered everything it has because it has been done correctly.

      In Australia’s case, our politicians keep thinking the rest of the world hasn’t addressed climate change correctly, so we’ll keep at it until it is address correctly. And we’ll get the same outcomes as every Socialist experiment. Meanwhile, the rest of the world moves on.

      220

      • #
        yarpos

        The world moving on is a good point. One of the memes the MSM use to fluff up their stories is that “Australia is falling behind in …….”

        If we are in fact falling behind in anything it may well be due to the enormous opportunity cost of the money and wasted human intellect we are spending responding to alarmist fantasies on AGW. Imagine if the national renewables, desal and Snowy 2.0 $ budgets and human capital were rolled together and used for something useful.

        180

      • #
        Latus Dextro

        Described years ago by Winston Churchill, before the Left instigated a body count, of the mounds and ossuaries of bones of the 100 million corpses, before the Greens thought melding the failing Leftist mess into eco-Marxism was a truly fantastic, but lets not deny, albeit unoriginal idea, before the UN charter was hijacked and the UNEP, ECOSOC, IPCC, were formed and infiltrated with a filtrate of hockey schtick wielding eco-Marxists and cultural-Marxist ideologues hell bent on climatism, divestment and a “transformational agenda,” before CO2 was labeled a pollutant and the Pope was Greenie, before bipartisan globalism fuelled by Leftist dogma stealthily and incrementally hijacked the educational, political and tertiary integrity and rationality that defined the new World of the practical and robust populace of Oceania, before the time when a country founded by the Anglican Church of England was declared by its socialist PM to be secular, just shortly before she headed off to Administer the United Nations Development Programme, and long before she returned to set up her socialist puppet PM Jacinda Ardern who comes from the same Soros laboratory, a clone factory as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proved, before free speech across the Western World became a suspect language, before all this and more Winston stated,

        “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its sole figure is the equality of misery.”

        Prescient. He had it exactly right. The Left ALWAYS ensure their own demise. Their curse is that they are domed to impose their rank, asinine stupidity on the rest of us motivated by the irrational expectation of a different outcome.
        It is now beyond a time when this dogma needs to be despatched to the anus annals of history and eliminated from civilised discourse and society, except as an academic discourse about the evidence of murderous and ruinous failure. Instead, it is time where freedom, prosperity, opportunity and small governance, deprived of the twisted ideological prism that turns a single beam of white light into a ‘rainbow’ once again illuminates a path into a hopeful future for all.

        80

        • #
          Latus Dextro

          “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its sole VIRTUE is the equality of misery.”

          70

      • #
        PeterS

        All this accurate depiction of what socialism is very good except for one thing. Unless the people stop voting 1 for either LNP or ALP+Greens we will continue to move closer and closer to a socialist state. I look forward to seeing the voters wake up at the next election and refuse to hand over majority government to either major party. Yes I know – I’m dreaming. More Australians should look in the mirror before the whine and carry on blaming either side of mainstream politicians. Both sides of the public are sitting in identical but separate echo chambers. They can yell and scream as much as they like but until they wake up, step outside their echo chamber and vote accordingly they might as well flip a coin to select which side forms government to avoid the fuss.

        20

    • #
      Dennis

      I read that large segments of the MSM are now controlled by the same leftist billionaires behind the climate change based hoax and profiteering ventures related.

      101

      • #
        Hanrahan

        I read that large segments of the MSM are now controlled by the same leftist billionaires behind the climate change based hoax and profiteering ventures related.

        Especially in the US. CNN is getting fewer viewers than the cooking channel and old re-runs. But billionaires buy media companies as an outlet for their philosophy, not as money making ventures.

        60

    • #
      Graham Richards

      Funny how there has not been one article about Trudie Trudeau’ s carbon tax and the reaction to it in the Australian Media. Not a mention from our shock jocks that I’ve heard, nothing from the likes of Paul Murray, Ross Cameron, Rowan Dean. The latter two personalities do however give Turnbull a good roasting nearly every week.
      All need to report on The Canadian situation. It’ll get the juices flowing here.
      OR
      God forbid there is an understanding not to talk about Canada by the MSM.

      100

    • #
      Komrade Kuma

      The Toronto Boy Toy will surely go down in history as one of the most inept, empty headed pretty boys ever to win democratic office.

      70

    • #
      Sommer

      Take a look at how Premier Catherine MacKenna has reacted to the news of Ontario’s change of direction under a new government. Keep in mind that the Liberals in Ontario were recently decimated….lost party status.
      https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.4751691/they-don-t-have-a-climate-plan-catherine-mckenna-calls-out-new-ontario-government-1.4751696

      20

  • #
    ace

    Funny what happens when, as in Ontario, you slap the voters in the face each and every month with monstrous hydro bills.

    The Canadian Federal Government’s own figures on the per capita annual costs of the National Carbon Tax were so alarming that they’ve had to be leaked. They should be shouted from the rooftops, and perhaps they will be, during next year’s election run-up.

    190

    • #
      Reed Coray

      Ace, your comment reminded me of a similar happening in California. In 1978 California put Proposition 13 on the ballot. For those of you unfamiliar with California politics, according to Wikipedia “Proposition 13 (officially named the People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation) was an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was declared constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.

      A few weeks before the election, the state of California in its infinite wisdom mailed updated property tax notices to the populace. The timing was disastrous for liberals (nee, socialists) everywhere. The “sticker shock” increase in taxes owed fomented a rebellion and the proposition passed. As I’ve always believed, with the exception of fighting a war for national survival, for most individuals money Trumps idealism (capital “T” intentional). Let’s hope similar responses occur worldwide thereby slowing the march of socialism.

      70

  • #
    Art

    It’s great that Ontario elected a sensible majority conservative government, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. The (socialist) NDP campaigned on being even more extreme that the soundly defeated Liberals were. Together those wacky left wing parties garnered 60% of the vote, which tells me the people haven’t really come to their senses. The only reason the Conservatives were able to win a majority is because the lefty vote was split.

    120

  • #
    Ian

    Unfortunately I missed “Tony Abbott’s Win”. Would someone assist and advise what it was he won? As Tony Abbott was responsible for Australia entering into the Paris Agreement and particularly for the 26-28 % reduction in CO2 emissions relative to 2005 emissions, it would appear he was a total loser rather than a winner. Yes, I am aware Turnbull ratified the Agreement but Abbott was the one who signed Australia to the Agreement in the first place. Had he not done so, Turnbull wouldn’t have had anything to ratify would he? That seems to escape the attention of the Conservative or perhaps they just don’t get the point.

    Any way, enough of dwelling on Abbott’s stupidity for, as he has admitted, not realising what he was signing. Can you believe it? Let’s address his latest stupidity so beloved by the Conservatives and the Nationals (perhaps) about building a 3000MW HELE power station. What a dill he is. Like all Conservatives still living in the 1950s when coal was king,
    .
    A relatively recent development in the UK is building small, 10-20MW, rapid response gas fired power stations for about $8 million each These can start up and be generating power in less than 5 minutes. They provide a very efficient back up to renewables. About 400 of these mini-power stations can be built for the price of one 1000MW HELE station. This gives great flexibility. Obviously this is something Abbott and all the other inflexible mindset antediluvianConservatives who are well stuck in the past haven’t even heard of let alone considered these mini power stations.

    538

    • #
      Peter C

      A relatively recent development in the UK is building small, 10-20MW, rapid response gas fired power stations for about $8 million each These can start up and be generating power in less than 5 minutes. They provide a very efficient back up to renewables. About 400 of these mini-power stations can be built for the price of one 1000MW HELE station. This gives great flexibility.

      Does not compute! 400 mini power stations @ 8 million each equals.$3200 million. For that you get 6000Mw.

      If they are so cheap why have renewables at all? Or 1000Mw power station for that matter,

      I gave you a green thumb for pointing out Tony Abbot’s mistake but I regretted it before I got to the end!

      251

      • #
        Ian

        I think I got the maths right although I didn’t think to calculate the out put. My post reflects the feelings of impotence and frustration I get from the constant harping on the past by people of my own age. Yes renewables do have problems and as I haven’t subscribed to the solar panel boom I’m subsidising those that have. Surely the disadvantages of burning coal are apparent. Yes it is cheap and yes the developing countries need cheap power but environmentally and healthwise it isn’t that flash. Why do elderly people seem so unable to move with the times? It isn’t renewables that are the sole cause of high power costs, far from it. The major impact is from the power wholesalers and retailers. And on that it is a disgrace that in Australia, retailers can and do charge for or block access to the usage data of consumers with smart meters. to block rival companies that might have cheaper tariffs It is plain there are options other than coal but these are ignored by the coal aficionados. Why?

        211

        • #
          Latus Dextro

          burning coal ….but environmentally and healthwise it isn’t that flash.

          Excluding the none-problem of CO2, perhaps you might illuminate further?

          ‘Clean Coal’ Technologies, Carbon Capture & Sequestration

          31

          • #
            Ian

            There is no significant carbon capture and sequestration occurring in Australia at the moment. Abbott sliced $460 million from CCS projects in 2015 following on from cuts made by the preceding ALP government. And of course as you intimate, without hose technologies there is no such thing as clean coal,

            I

            27

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              What’s a “hose technology”.

              We don’t need carbon sequestration.

              CO2 is harmless, unless of course you have too little CO2 in the bloodstream.

              Then your autonomic nervous system will fail to react and you die.

              Alkylosis is dangerous.

              KK

              21

              • #
                Ian

                You were quite right to pick up on my missing the t off those. My checking was inadequate. So to return the kindness, it isn’t alkylosis but alkalosis and yes alkalosis will kill you.

                But KK, so will acidosis, which you conveniently fail to mention, which occurs if there is too much CO2 in the bloodstream. So CO2 sequestration is good as it will prevent acidosis. Of course that comment is as ridiculous yours on low atmospheric CO2 causing alkalosis. The body pH is however not entirely regulated by atmospheric CO2, indeed atmospheric CO2 plays little part, but by lungs and kidneys. It is therefore highly unlikely CO2 sequestration would cause multiple deaths due to alkalosis. And it is equally highly unlikely that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels would cause multiple deaths due to acidosis.

                22

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              How often does Mal water you.

              00

            • #

              There is no significant carbon capture and sequestration occurring in Australia at the moment.

              Ian, I take it that you’re not aware that full Carbon capture and sequestration will never be achieved on any scale, let alone on the scale required. It’s the ‘stick’ that those on the left use to require any new coal fired power plant, without even having the first idea of what it actually takes.

              So, blaming TA for slicing funding from something that cannot be made to work is a tad disingenuous to say the least.

              You really should do some research.

              Tony.

              110

              • #
                Ian

                Thanks for your homily. You ever hear of the Otway project in Victoria? It’s to do with sequestration and was run by CSIRO.. My very good friend was a leader of the project, he moved to a professorship, and we often discussed how it was going. The project has so farsuccessfully sequestrated 80,000 tonnes of CO2.. I suspect I know a lot more about CO2 sequestration than you think I do

                05

              • #
                Ian

                Not trying to mess up Jo’s blog at all. Just addressing comments that are scientifically incorrect, saying why they are incorrect and giving the facts to substantiate my criticism. Is that not the way science works on Jo’s blog? I very much doubt it

                Or perhaps you feel that Jo’s blog should be full of comments that bear little or no resemblance to fact?

                You claim “Many of your responses seem to deliberately misinterpret comments made by others so that you can have an excuse to let fly”

                Not at all. Can you give me a couple of examples of where I have deliberately misinterpreted a comment? In almost every reply I either print out or rewrite statements that I believe are incorrect and provide material from and references to documentation that supports the reasons for my criticism. Is that not the way you believe this blog should operate?..Should this blog just cater for those with a particular view point so that their prejudices can be reinforced?

                Why should people not be challenged for disregarding or denying or misrepresenting the truth?

                Is that the way you think scientific discussion should be conducted? Just accept whatever is written without questioning views that you know are factually incorrect because to disagree may hurt the writer’s feelings?

                And why is that letting fly? That is a bit rich coming from you who is doing exactly that in this comment to which I am replying

                If you or I are unable to back our comments with appropriate supporting evidence why should those comments be allowed to pass unchallenged?

                Trying to bully me because you don’t like what I write is childish in the extreme

                Still you are, once again, employing the age old tactic play the man if you can’t address the argument. I have suggested elsewhere that you look up the Krebs cycle. Perhaps you should look up ad hominem as well

                12

            • #
              AndyG55

              “there is no such thing as clean coal”

              Rubbish,

              So long as you capture basically all the sulphate and nitrate, coal is clean

              You don’t really think CO2 is “dirty” do you, or any sort of pollution ???

              In fact, the CO2 it releases is HIGHLY BENEFICIAL to all life on Earth.

              90

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Not only beneficial Andy.

                It’s Essential.

                On the human side of things CO2 in the bloodstream is an essential neuro-regulator.

                KK

                31

              • #
                Ian

                KK, yes CO2 in the blood stream is an essential neuro regulator. But, KK, CO2 in the blood stream comes primarily from metabolism not from the atmosphere. Humans need oxygen for cells to produce energy. Google the Krebs cycle for more information. As a result of the production of energy CO2 is formed. That’s why we exhale CO2. Atmospheric CO2 has very little to do with body pH

                00

              • #
                Ian

                ‘“there is no such thing as clean coal”

                Rubbish,

                So long as you capture basically all the sulphate and nitrate, coal is clean

                Can you not see how contradictory that comment is?

                So coal is clean as long as you make it clean? Yeah right. It’s also white if you paid it white.

                If coal was clean there would be no need to capture nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide and particulate matter and all the other noxious products generated by burning coal.

                It is made clean by scrubbing but that process is expensive and you’ll find even after scrubbing, pollutants are not totally eliminated.

                03

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Andy,

                He knows more about carbon sequestration than you.

                He reads the Newcastle Morning Herald.

                10

            • #
              beowulf

              Coal is king again around the world. Do try to keep up with the rest of us Ian. You’re not living in 2010 now mate. Reality has overtaken the lies you have swallowed. Australia is only behind the times in the process of dumping useless renewables.

              I’ll tell you what I can’t move on from though Ian — your constant bitching every time you visit this site and your labelling as a 1950s fossil anyone who doesn’t agree with your limited view of generation technology. You’ve insulted us several times now and it’s getting tiresome. By your own admission you are an infrequent visitor. Perhaps if you came here more often, opened your mind and listened, you might learn enough to change your views and join the rest of us in 2018.

              That link of Latus Dextro’s is by world-nuclear.org, pushing the idea of dirty coal for its own partisan reasons, to be taken with a grain of salt. Who in their right mind would want to bury a vital plant food which is in short supply if they didn’t have an ulterior motive?

              I live down-wind of 2 coal power stations that are already clean Ian: Bayswater and Liddell. Their CO2 output is clean, harmless plant food that my garden craves more of. Undesirable chemicals and particulates are taken out by the scrubbers. This is not the 1950s Ian.

              I’d like to know about all these environmental and health issues you fail to elaborate on. Perhaps you could have a yarn to those forced out of their homes by wind turbine infrasound; perhaps you could go to China and see real environmental and health issues caused by renewables production, then share your enlightened views with us.

              31

              • #
                Ian

                If you believe coal is king You’re deluding yourself..In 2017 in the UK renewables supplied nearly 10x as much electricity than did coal fired power plants. You’re not in 1880 now.

                As for visiting this site it’s a pretty fair bet I was here long before you and I bitch about the fossilised 1950s look backs because I’m ashamed to be in their demographic which seems like those in their 70s to 80s. I can at least think and move with the times even though I am pushing 80. You lot just make our generation look decrepit. And jf you’re not in my generation then you should be downright ashamed of the views you hold

                29

              • #
                Ian

                Before replying to your post apologise for using the word demographic I should have written age cohort

                You write:

                “I live down wind of two coal powered stations that are already clean, Bayswater and Liddell”

                “Their CO2 output is clean, harmless plant food that my garden craves more of. Undesirable chemicals and particulates are taken out by the scrubbers. This is not the 1950s”

                You are living in a fool’s paradise beowulf. Here’s an article from the Newcastle Herald dated May 22 2018 so only a couple of months old.
                (https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5420145/old-and-dirty-but-its-electricity-still-needed/)

                Newcastle Herald is reporting, carbon dioxide is not the only problematic substance emitted from Liddell’s chimney stacks.

                Burning coal gives rise to various chemicals capable of causing respiratory problems, and while “scrubbers” and other pollution control devices remove much of the threat, some chemicals, including sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides, escape in levels well above best-practice international standards.

                Despite acknowledged work on improving air quality in the Upper Hunter, we now find that Liddell is operating on an exemption for nitrous oxide levels that was in place when AGL bought the station from the state government in 2014, and which is set to remain in place at least until 2022.

                The Liddell emissions came to light through a freedom of information request by Hunter environmentalist James Whelan. Dr Whelan also obtained a report indicating that further pollution controls could be installed at Liddell – and presumably at any other NSW station exceeding nitrous oxide limits – with cost appearing to be the main reason for not retrofitting them.

                Now to Bayswater

                The Bayswater coal-fired power plant in NSW emits more toxic sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) than any other Australian power station, yet owner AGL plans to expand the facility without spending a cent on pollution-controlling technologies that are mandatory overseas.Mar 11, 2018

                From the Newcastle Herald (https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5321177/new-hunter-pollution-data-leaves-region-gasping/

                “The NPI data showed Bayswater released 294,000kg of fine particle PM2.5 emissions in 2017, while PM2.5 emissions in nearby Muswellbrook have exceeded the national standard each year since 2012.

                Bayswater reported a 23 per cent reduction in nitrous oxide emissions, while nearby Liddell power station reported a 9 per cent increase in sulfur dioxide emissions. Both emissions can cause serious health impacts and are a particular risk for people with respiratory and heart condition.

                Bayswater emitted 73.5kg of mercury in 2017 while Eraring, Australia’s biggest power station, emitted just 1.3kg of mercury.

                AGL have certainly taken you for a ride

                You also wrote “I’d like to know about all these environmental and health issues you fail to elaborate on”

                Just click on the links above and read for yourself all about the dangers that you refuse to believe exist thanks to the “clean CO2 emissions” from Bayswater and Liddell.

                You and the other coal aficionados are being had for mugs by the power companies

                16

              • #
                beowulf

                So there’s no baseload power in your world Ian? Just random wind and solar when you don’t need them. The only ones deluded are those that think we can do without coal . . . massively deluded.

                You quote UK figures. The comparison is farcical. The UK has been trashing its coal power for ideological reasons for years and it does not rely on its wind and solar, but when things get tough they have to put the remaining coal plants into overdrive just to survive.

                Solar is a virtual non-player in the UK for obvious reasons. Here’s the latest figures on wind power in the UK: wind output down 40% on last year and weeks more “wind drought” still to come. Unreliable, worthless wind power achieved at a phenomenal environmental and financial cost. Endangered birds brought to the point of extinction, thousands of acres of Scottish forests levelled for wind farms, pensioners dying of cold in winter due to unaffordable power etc. and the wind power is not there when its most needed. Great stuff eh Ian? And please don’t come back with some nonsense about mega-batteries. Britain has had 6 weeks of low/no wind thus far with more to come and a high power demand in a hot summer. No battery can last that long. Oh wait, there is one battery that can — a coal stockpile at a coal power station Ian — typically 90 days’ worth of stored power on site. Wow!

                https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/07/19/wind-output-40-down-on-last-year/

                So much for wind, then we have the DRAX monstrosity that now burns US wood pellets instead of local coal and in the process produces far more real pollutants than it formerly did by burning coal. Classed as wonderful “renewable” power in your figures. Why don’t you filter out wood pellets and hydro and see how much your beloved wind and solar actually produced on their own?

                Britain survives on wood pellets, coal, gas and nuclear (its own + imported from France), NOT random renewables like wind and solar.

                Now to your local articles in the Green-Fairfax rag below, written by a couple of eco-activist doctor academic types from Newcastle Uni. Firstly mercury emissions: power station elemental mercury (vapour) emissions are swamped by background levels in a mixed atmosphere. American studies show there is also no localised effect around power stations or downwind. A far greater effect is local geology. If power stations are to be closed for mercury emissions then all crematoria should be closed even sooner, because their mercury emissions can exceed those of coal burning. Humans take up about 3 micrograms a day by way of food that gathers mercury from the soil. This is not considered harmful.

                A CSIRO study quote: “The environmental impact of the utilisation of Australian thermal coals in relation to air emissions of trace elements and the leaching of trace elements from waste ash is considered to be minimal.”

                https://www.acarp.com.au/Media/ACARP-WP-3-TraceElementsinCoal.pdf

                To the gases. Nitrous oxide (in other words Laughing Gas) is only an issue if you believe in the enhanced greenhouse effect, the discredited ozone depletion effect and fairies at the bottom of the garden. NO health effects unless you become a laughing gas addict. Sulphur dioxide requires a concentration of 500ppm to begin to become toxic to humans. That is an absolutely unachievably high concentration for mixed air. Perhaps if you had your head in the smoke stack for a week you might get a dose. I ask once again, where are all these “serious health impacts” you refer to? They aren’t in the literature. I’d suggest you pay less attention to Greenpeace disinformation. Neither gas has caused any acid rain in the Hunter in 50 years of power station operation either. What is the problem?

                If planned upgrades to the likes of Bayswater had not been stopped by Greenie pressure you would have less to complain about. As it stands, those who stopped the upgrades now bellyache about the things that weren’t upgraded.

                Mines produce lots of dust, yes. The Hunter open cuts mostly have strata of greywacke above and between the coal seams. It crushes to a fine powder. On a windy day if you live near a mine you will get dust. So don’t live next to a mine like the tree-changers who bought properties next to existing mines at Bulga and then proceeded to whinge about dust. The draglines next door might have given a hint there was a mine over the fence to someone with a brain.

                Wake up and smell the roses Ian. You’ve missed the last 10 years of developments with renewables. They don’t work. Coal is on the rise around the world. Renewables are being wound back or scrapped in places like Germany, the bastion of renewables. The subsidies that have propped up renewables for years are being axed. Common sense is breaking out in small pockets. Open your eyes and your mind Ian. By the way, I’m not ashamed to have been immune to the Green propaganda which has tainted your views.

                41

              • #
                Ian

                Strange you cite that well known sceptics blog notalotofpeopleknowthat to support your argument but denigrate the Newcastle Heral which is on site as it were to refute mine.

                In your initial comment you stated

                “Their CO2 output is clean, harmless plant food that my garden craves more of. Undesirable chemicals and particulates are taken out by the scrubbers. This is not the 1950s”

                I then bring a couple of aricle from local papers to your attention and after vilifying them you then go on to comment how the pollutants from these power stations are in fact there but they’re not there in serious amounts. Yeah right. What happened to your claim they are removal by scrubbers?

                And your comments on particles coming from the mining of coal are totally irrelevant. The particles I referred to are those emitted by the Bayswater power station and nothing to do with mining. I refer you to this-art of my initial comment which you clearly did not understand or chose to deliberately misrepresent

                “The NPI data showed Bayswater released 294,000kg of fine particle PM2.5 emissions in 2017″

                Absolutely nothing to do with mines and everything to do with the emissions from Bayswater. And as for the reports being by Green doctors did they make up the emission figures.

                Just face fact beowulf, your initial comment that only CO2 is emitted from Liddell and Bayswater was totally wrong not only that but you completely contradict it in your second comment

                13

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Ian,

                You are behaving like an uneducated 10 year old kid.

                Many of your responses seem to deliberately misinterpret comments made by others so that you can have an excuse to let fly.

                You don’t seem to have any coherence to what you’re doing here: it’s just a wall of noise.

                What’s going on?

                One day you say you are 40 years old and a week later you are 80.

                You aren’t searching for answers, just trying to mess up Jo’s blog.

                What person who acts in such a destructive manner can expect to be taken seriously?

                30

        • #
          yarpos

          “yes the developing countries need cheap power but environmentally and healthwise it isn’t that flash. ”

          so how long should they wait? when can they have something like first world power and reliability? should they be sacrificed to the AGW gods and huddle around their one led lamp powered from the days solar generation if any. All supplied my technologies they are ill placed to keep running.

          You talk about people not moving with the times yet your perception of a current generation coal plant impacts seems firmly rooted in the 1950-60s

          40

          • #
            Ian

            If you think coal burning power plants emit clean CO2 only you are naive. To reply to another post I looked up “pollution from coal fired power plants in Australia. Try it for yourself and ponder on the results. They don’t support the clean CO2 emissions mantra

            16

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      You have the right to free speech.

      You have the right to make incorrect statements about the costing of small scale gas units in Britain.

      I have the right to assess my Electricity bills, doubling and then some, in comparison with the rise that has led to this Canadian uprising.

      I have the right to notice the closure, death by electricity overpricing, of Kurri Aluminium Smelter and the imminent closure of the larger and newer Tomago Aluminium.

      This Gigantic Electricity Hoax of the last decade has ruined many lives and ruined the hopes and dreams of many thrifty, hard working Australians who relied on the integrity of their Governments.

      When government can get away with annually redirecting $1,000 of every family’s electricity accounts to their own special “charities”, I am free to draw conclusions as to the openness and legality of that action.

      My conclusion after this assessment, is that Government is acting outside of legal boundaries appropriate to their office.

      This is serious and while I am heartened that Canadians have seen through this enslavement, I am concerned that fellow Australians have a complicit media that hides reality.

      Poor Fella, My Country.

      KK

      430

      • #
        Ian

        Of course you have the right to comment as you see fit and equally I have the right to state I got the the price of mini power stations, that you say is incorrect, from the Financial Review (https://www.ft.com/content/ba6bd46a-1d75-11e8-956a-43db76e69936) that stated:

        “Although they only generate small amounts of power, these mini units are cheap to build at around £5m for a 6MW plant and nimble to operate. They are increasingly valuable at times of peak demand, such as during last week’s extreme weather, or when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine”.

        07

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          I was referring to the obvious misuse of the costing.

          I wasn’t referring to your mathematical skill, just obvious lack of judgment.

          The economies of scale in having one larger producing unit compared with several hundred smaller units with an equal number of connections should ring alarm bells.

          The extra CO2 doesn’t count, why????????

          KK

          80

          • #
            Ian

            Not sure what you mean about economies of scale.. These mini power plants are not to replace coal fired power stations, that will be done by renewables. They are to supplement renewables by putting power into the grid if the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Large coal or gas fired power plants are not suitable as diesel they take several hours to get up to speed. The advantage of mini-power plants is that they can be up and running in minutes. This is what is required to prevent blackouts if some renewable sites stop producing energy. There is no need for hundreds of them as you suggest. Only nine not hundreds of diesel generators were required in South Australia and in future these generators will be located at a single site instead of two as at present which facilitates connecting to the existing grid. Obviously mini power plants careful assessment of optimal sites for mini power plant locations will be necessary to minimise connection costs

            17

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Bizarre.

              21

            • #
              Chad

              Ian,
              Those 9 “mini” generators that are laying around in PE, are 30MW each and cost $300+ mil . They are currently running on diesel.
              FYI ,…
              … AGL are currently replacing the coal fired Torrens “A” plant with 12 x 18 MW , gas fueled, Reciprocating ICE driven generators..
              These are specifically intended to provide flexible back up for the variable RE supplies.
              Technically they are a smart solution for the inconsistency of a RE infected grid, but from an power cost, or emissions point of view…not so smart.!
              FYI 2…
              “Mini” gas fueled “CHP” generator plants are common in the design of new large commercial buildings ..office blocks shopping malls, hospitals, etc….. Normally “grid tied” also to enable exporting of power in emergencies.

              10

        • #
          MuzoftheRiverina

          So Ian, if I get your drift, all we need is one of your mini gas fired plants for every two 3mw wind turbines too back them up, along with an operator, and one mini plant for every 200 rooftop solar installations with operator..
          If we need all that backup, why do we need the PV and wind turbines. Seems like we are double dipping into energy consumers pockets to me.

          100

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            More like treble dipping Muz.

            50

          • #
            Ian

            No you don’t get my drift at all. Strange thinking. Why would you wasnt a mini-power plant for rooftop solar? Rooftop solar is servicing the house underneath it’s roof not many houses via the grid. Why yould you need q mini power plant for every two wind turbines. My drift as you call it is that if a there is a significant drop in power generated by renewables due to climatic conditions mini power plants can supply power to the grid in minutes not hours.

            16

            • #
              Graeme#4

              The SA blackout system changes occurred in hundreds of one second, so the ability to respond in minutes may not be sufficient. Their battery can respond in milliseconds, but its capacity is very suspect.
              However, I think your costing may be correct, as I believe WA has a number of these mini gas plants installed along the main gas line that runs through Perth’s suburbs, north to south. I believe that these small units are started to boost power supplies in busy periods.

              00

              • #
                Graeme#4

                Looks like I was wrong in stating that the additional generation sources in Perth were small. They are a small number of larger gas-powered generators, between 85 MW and 500 MW.

                00

    • #
      manalive

      Thanks for the history lesson.
      The only obstacle to a free market approach to power generation is the present PM and he is no conservative.
      It’s not about Abbott v Turnbull, it’s about restoring a free open market sans subsidies and government mandates.
      A free open market will determine what form of generation is the most efficient and most efficient for the states and country.

      251

    • #
      Dennis

      Not so, PM Abbott was replaced by PM Turnbull in September 2015, the Paris Conference was held end of November into December 2015.

      The Paris Agreement was signed in New York at UN HQ during April 2016 and was ratified in New York in November 2016.

      Of course tactics for the Paris Conference were being discussed in cabinet before Abbott was rolled, the media release announcing the cabinet decisions on what Australia would take to the Conference was from the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet earlier in 2015 but not finalised until later in 2015.

      Note at this point that PM Abbott was facing a hostile cabinet with several cabinet ministers plotting against him, we now know. The Black Hand faction that had recruited Labor’s GetUp to help them to get Abbott.

      It is interesting that the government tries so hard to pass the blame back to Abbott for the Paris Agreement signing and ratification.

      Surely they are not worried that voters are not happy?

      221

      • #
        Ian

        I never cease to be surprised by the resistance ce to facts shown by those claiming Abbott didn’t get Australia into the Paris Agreement.

        This is what has been reported from a recent meeting of the Coalition party room
        (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/19/tony-abbott-tells-party-he-was-misled-by-advisers-over-paris-climate-deal)

        “Tony Abbott has claimed he was misled by bureaucrats before he signed Australia up to the Paris international climate agreement in 2015 during another sortie by government conservatives against the national energy guarantee”

        According to people present, Abetz, the Tasmanian Liberal, attempted to argue during Tuesday’s meeting that Abbott hadn’t given hard commitments when he took the decision to sign the government up to the Paris agreement – that Australia’s undertakings were always aspirational.

        Abbott told colleagues he’d been misled by bureaucrats during the Paris commitment process about the impact of the commitment.

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

        110

        • #
          Dennis

          Regardless of what The Guardian newspaper wrote the fact remains that the timeline was:-

          Late November 2015 into December 2015 the Paris Conference was held.

          During April 2016 the Paris Agreement was signed.

          During November 2016 the Paris Agreement was ratified.

          During September 2015 PM Turnbull replaced PM Abbott.

          In a recent address in memory of the late Bob Carter Tony Abbott said the following …

          “Now one of the most important laws of politics is: beware the unintended consequences of what seems-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time.

          I’m not sure that the Howard government fully anticipated where the renewable energy target would lead when it first made the decision to impose one.

          I certainly didn’t anticipate, as prime minister, how the aspirational targets we (the Turnbull Government) agreed to at Paris would, in different hands, become binding commitments.

          I didn’t anticipate how agreeing to emissions that were 26 per cent lower in 2030 than in 2005 would subsequently become a linear progression of roughly equal cuts every year over the next decade.

          But now that we are more alive to all the consequences of combining energy policy with emissions policy – and now that we do understand that this will define our economy for decades to come – there is no excuse for getting it wrong again.”.

          11

      • #

        Let’s not get bogged down in who meant to do what about Paris. That damage was done, now we need to undo it, as a prelude to smashing the climatariat. (I know, I know…they’ll just pass on to new fields of carpetbagging and new swill-troughs, but at least we can shoo them away from our superlative coal resources.)

        The main thing is to eject this poltroon Turnbull, along with globalist automaton Frydenberg and Clintonista Bishop. A small clique at The Australian, a few doctors’ wives and much of the ABC viewership will be outraged. But the average punter is on to these preening turkeys and their green treachery. We’re primed to vote for coal above any personality, red team or blue team.

        We may not be brilliant, but we know where the light really comes from when we flick the switch. No, I mean where it really comes from (see TonyfromOz).

        90

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          People say that our President is dumb and not very smart.

          I think he is brilliant, he has inflicted and held a six Billion dollar surcharge on our annual electricity accounts and very few are aware of it.

          Talk to business people about the impact of rapid doubling of electricity bills on their viability and capacity to employ staff.

          We are not heading in a positive direction; Trumble knows this and keeps on smirking. He loves watching people beat up on Shorten for the things he has done himself and continues to revel in shafting the nation.

          KK

          He and his friends and family are O.K., No worries mate.

          40

          • #

            Gotta give him some credit. 6 billion buys you half of a late 21st century submarine…and maybe half a tank of diesel to run it.

            40

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              You gotta give him credit.

              He dumps that hopeless Sub contract on us while holding a straight face and he hasn’t been fired?

              He loves sticking it to the Voters.

              Cattle.

              40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Ian:

      Those “small, 10-20MW, rapid response gas fired power stations” have been around since 1963. Known as OCGT – Open Cycle Gas Turbines. Yes, they start up quickly but that makes them prone to heat stresses and higher maintenance (and down time). Their output also costs more than wind turbines and PV solar. And they don’t really reduce CO2 emissions that much.

      If you wanted to use gas then a CCGT plant would be the way to go. More efficient hence lower emissions, cheaper output than wind or solar, and definitely more reliable. And emissions would be no more and probably less than your combined renewables + OCGTs.

      170

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        It’s interesting how the concern has switched from “CO2″ production to good and bad CO2 production in just the space of a year.

        Coal origin CO2; Bad.

        Gas origin CO2; Good.

        Is there something inconsistent or weird about this?

        It seems that Coal has been Objectified and now represents the new image of Satan.

        Welcome to the Green, Science Free, Religion.

        Thermageddon is at hand.

        KK

        180

        • #
          yarpos

          not really

          I believe the thinking is you are running the gas beasties short term, not continually. Therefore less of the dreaded armgeddon gas that supports the world as we know it will be “emitted”

          10

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            That’s a small point but they are still producing significant amounts of CO2. Why doesn’t this concern them.

            In my mind it just reinforces the fact that CO2 is not really the issue.

            The main target is control, siphoning off significant amounts of electricity income and more control.

            They couldn’t care less about the environment.

            KK

            30

      • #
        Ian

        Thanks Graeme. You clearly know more than I do. My comment was prompted by a report in last night’s BBC news of a protest in Hampshite about the proposal to build a mini power station. I then turned to the internet for more information sand came across the article fro the Financial Review and another piece, from the Daily Telegraph in February 2018, that I didn’t mention . That piece was headlined “New energy investment favours mini power plants after cheapest ever auction”
        (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/09/new-energy-investment-favours-mini-power-plants-cheapest-ever/)

        The piece began

        “Britain’s much-needed investment in new power plants will favour small-scale projects and batteries after a Government auction to secure future power supplies fell to its lowest ever level.

        The would-be developers of large-scale gas plants were locked out of an annual reverse auction, which cleared at its lowest ever price of £8.40 per kilowatt for the year 2021 to 2022.

        The auction is designed to offer the most economic power plants a contract to be on standby through the winter to help keep the lights on while limited price rises for households”.

        From this it seems that the UK is moving in the direction of mini-power plants. I am surprised byyour comment that these power plants have been around since 1963 Do you have the reference for that? It is surprising they are now some 55 years later, only just starting to hit the headlines. I wonder why that is

        10

      • #
        Chad

        Ian, and ading to G3s comment, ..
        You do not have to be a genius to know that if you can spend $5m to generate 6MW, the simple economies of scale would dictate that its much cheaper to build something that will generate 600 or 2000MW.. Distributed generation is a nice neat theory, but expensive and a logistical nightmare to impliment. Really those small OCGT plants are just “band aids” for a failed grid system.

        120

        • #
          Ian

          See my reply toKK. Mini power plants are not to replace large power plant, renewables will do that but to provide rapid back up if renewables are not functioning temporarily

          13

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Can’t.
            Really.
            Accept that.
            Proposition.

            21

          • #

            Mini power plants are not to replace large power plant, renewables will do that…..

            On no they can’t.

            Tony.

            61

            • #
              Ian

              Oh no they can’t?

              Current evidence from the UK seems to suggest “Oh yes they can”

              (https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/wind-solar-overtake-nuclear-electricity-source-uk-first-time-renewable-energy-a8281656.html)

              In 2017 figures published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy showed more UK electricity was produced by wind and solar sources last year than by nuclear power stations, for the first time.

              Renewables’ share of electricity generation shot up to 29 per cent, while nuclear sources accounted for around 21 per cent.

              The increase means low carbon energy sources – which include both renewables and nuclear – now account for over half of all electricity generated.

              Wind had a particularly good year, giving weight to renewable energy leaders who are calling on the government to end its ban on wind-power subsidies.

              “These official figures confirm that it’s been another record-breaking year for wind energy, which generated 15 per cent of the UK’s electricity in 2017,” said Emma Pinchbeck, executive director of trade body RenewableUK. “The move to a smart, renewables-led energy system is well underway.”

              The figures showed renewable energy generation was up nearly a fifth due to increased capacity and higher wind speeds.

              Greenhouse gas emissions also fell by 3 per cent across the country, thanks largely to a drop in coal use.

              Output from renewable energy sources is now nearly 10 times higher than coal, a notable achievement considering coal’s output was the higher of the two only five years ago.

              “The plunging price of renewables is allowing low carbon energy to replace coal and gas,” said Nina Schrank, energy campaigner for Greenpeace UK.

              10

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…..and the Nationals (perhaps) about building a 3000MW HELE power station.’

      No ‘perhaps’ about it, the Nats are leading the charge on this and the Libs are playing catch up.

      If we don’t get our Hele we’ll cross the floor.

      170

    • #
      Annie

      Where is the security of gas supply in the UK for all these gas-powered electricity stations? It’s not looking marvellous.

      111

      • #
        sophocles

        Where is the security of gas supply in the UK

        Trump, Putin, Trump, Putin Trump Putin Trump,Putin ah WTF! Trump …

        40

      • #
        ROM

        .
        Russia !

        Where else Annie

        Without gas to sell Putin’s Russia would be bankrupt.

        Without Russia’s gas the west europeans , germany in particular would be ?? well relying on nuclear power from their own 6 reactors , 4 of which have been closed down by Merkel, the other two to be closed down next year I think plus nuke power from France and all that fossil fueled energy from those 4 lignite [ Brown coal ] powered generators they are currently building.
        And they would still freeze even then.

        Germany’s “Energiewend”, the “transition to renewable power is dead and just remains to be buried according to a number of German politicians including a couple on Merkels cabinet apparently even though the propaganda is still being played out.

        Russia is building a huge gas pipeline from its west Siberian gas fields to China using gas from the truly immense Bazenhov shale fields
        Another gas line, about the fourth I think is being built to supply Europe with even more Russian gas.

        Ands the Russians have a huge, huge problem coming up which nobody in the west seems to give credence to.

        China under Xi is expansionist and what better place to expand into for an Asian continental, not seaborne power to expand into but Russia’s Far East with its immense unexploited resources, a declining population numbering a few millions , rail lines linking it all through Manchuria and Mongolia and the trains packed with chinese traders heading north to barter and sell to the siberians in those immense Russian areas.

        One of my daughters saw these train loads of chinese traders heading up to Chita, the russian Far East formerly closed military city first hand in the mid 1990′s when she went from Hong Kong to Helsinki on the Trans Siberian train..

        Trumps instincts are right again.
        Putin is going to need the west far more than the west will need Putin and Russia if the Chinese continue their expanism under Xi `which under dictators such as Xi has set himself up as, always occurs. 3000 years of chinese history is backing this expanistic tendency.

        170

        • #
          ROM

          .
          Annie @ # 4.7

          Should have added a local source of gas that just might have the capability of supplying the wole UK with all the gas it will need for about at least a century ahead.
          Maybe!

          An outfit called Cuadrilla is about to begin or has begun the first Frakking of a deep drill hole looking for shale gas and oil in the last couple of weeks.

          Ifyou want to follow up on this I suggest the GWPF forum .

          If Cuadrilla gets lucky and finds lots of gas and oil in those shale beds , the Great British Shale oil and gas rush will be on in a big way.
          And the UK’s energy problems will be solved for decades into the future.

          The American frakkers have to work their drills through seams of shale that might vary from a few metres to tens of metres thick and which are undulating as well. The technology to do this a all a couple of kilometres underground is unbelievable .

          From my reading the British deposits of shale in the main shale deposit in England is anywhere up to a couple of thousand feet thick.

          If this proves to be the case, it has been suggested that the UK might in fact eventually due to the sheer volume of shale / oil shale they think might be in that desposit plus other UK deposits, that the british might in fact match the americans in the amounts of gas and shale oil they might be able to produce over a century or so.

          90

      • #
        Latus Dextro

        They’ll get to fracking ….eventually, probably just short of their second civil war or when Boris finally heads the show and the globalist Brexit prevaricators move joyously to Calais singing the Red Flag. Uncertain which may come first.

        60

      • #
        yarpos

        you spotted the flaw in their cunning plan

        just wait till the Irish discover a massive gas basin off the Aran islands and can hold them to ransom.

        00

    • #
      jpm

      Ian
      I don’t know where you live but here in Australia we have a democracy. The PM is not a dictator, he cannot decide these things on his own and it is not just his opinion that is of consequence. I have no evidence to prove it but I think that it is fairly certain that the party decided to sign the Paris agreement and Tony being the figure head had to sign whether he liked it or not. It is the party that is responsible, not the individual who happens to be PM.
      Now that he is a back bencher he is able to voice his own opinion.
      I could be wrong but he has voiced opposition to the CAGW theory, carbon taxes & marketing, and renewable electricity generation on many occasions.
      We can only hope that the electorate wises up and pushes for our exit from the Paris agreement and an end to the RET and all other such futile legislation attempting to control the weather while merely ruining our economy. That is what the Greens want isn’t it? We shouldn’t give in to them!
      John

      170

      • #
        Dennis

        “I will not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism” – PM Abbott 2014 or 2015.

        “Man made global warming is c*ap”.

        130

      • #
        Ian

        I have no evidence to prove it but I think that it is fairly certain that the party decided to sign the Paris agreement and Tony being the figure head had to sign whether he liked it or not. It is the party that is responsible, not the individual who happens to be PM.

        The reports in June 2018 clearly show that was not the case. Tony Abbott was heading the charge

        Very recently in june 2018 a meeting of the Coalition party room was discussing energy policy at which Tony Abbott claimed he was misled by bureaucrats. In a comment I’ve just posted I gave the report in the Guardian about that meeting. As readers here may dispute anything from the Guardian this is what the Australian Financial reported (https://www.afr.com/news/tony-abbott-steps-up-plan-to-undermine-energy-policy-20180618-h11ju9)

        “Tony Abbott’s own words have been used against him by Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg as he sought to quell an internal revolt against the National Energy Guarantee being led by the former prime minister.

        Mr Abbott and his followers believe Australia’s energy policy should have no emissions reduction target and during Tuesday’s weekly meeting of Coalition MPs and senators, Mr Abbott claimed he was “misled by bureaucrats” when he committed Australia at the Paris climate talks to reducing all emissions 26-28 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.

        Tasmanian Liberal senator and Abbott ally Eric Abetz told the meeting the target was only ever aspirational. In response, Mr Frydenberg read to the party room Mr Abbott’s comments in 2015 in which he committed Australia to the Paris targets.

        “There’s a definite commitment to 26 per cent but we believe under the policies that we’ve got, with the circumstances that we think will apply, that we can go to 28 per cent,” Mr Frydenberg quoted Mr Abbott as saying three years ago.”

        24

        • #
          Dennis

          Bob Carter Memorial Lecture by Tony Abbott MP

          “Now one of the most important laws of politics is: beware the unintended consequences of what seems-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time.

          I’m not sure that the Howard government fully anticipated where the renewable energy target would lead when it first made the decision to impose one.

          I certainly didn’t anticipate, as prime minister, how the aspirational targets we Turnbull Government) agreed to at Paris would, in different hands, become binding commitments.

          I didn’t anticipate how agreeing to emissions that were 26 per cent lower in 2030 than in 2005 would subsequently become a linear progression of roughly equal cuts every year over the next decade.

          But now that we are more alive to all the consequences of combining energy policy with emissions policy – and now that we do understand that this will define our economy for decades to come – there is no excuse for getting it wrong again.”.

          10

  • #
    Ian

    Strange how the fact that “fully 48% of Australians are ready to pull out of Paris” is spruiked as a win for the Conservative rump that regards the 48% who voted to Remain in the EU as losers. 48% is a lose not a win whichever way Conservatives want to slice and dice it.. Mind you the way the question was framed you’d have had to have been a masochist to answer no.

    Respondents were asked “Donald Trump announced that the `United states is pulling out of the Paris climate change agreement as the cost outweighed the likely. If pulling out could result in lower electricity prices would you be in favour or opposed to Australia pulling out of the Paris climar=te change agreement?

    That question is so blatantly directed t the hip pocket isn’t pushing voters to vote “Yes” I don’t know what is and still only 48% said yes.

    428

    • #
      Peter C

      More hip pocket explanations required. I hope that either Cory Bernardy or Tony Abbot goes full out in the run up to our next election.

      How much are we paying for zero reduction in Climate risk?

      130

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Hi Peter,

        Won’t it be great when those numbers come out.

        Karbon Mitigation in Australia.

        a. Annual total of costs in electricity manipulation, donations, contributions to United Nations Karbon Debasement Schemes and administration.

        3. Running Australian total since this started.

        The obvious costing required is that which will Never see the light of Day.
        For a city of 500,000 people I would like engineering cost only, No Cross Subsidies, of;

        1. Coal fired power.
        2. Solar Power.
        3. Wind Turbines.

        Each source to be engineered to provide power 24 hours daily, without fail.

        Will never see that.

        The truth is that the green laba Grumble Freuden types love coal fired power.

        It Covers up the real cost and FAILURE of Renewables.

        KK

        80

        • #
          Ian

          Apologies, clearly i did not make clear the point I was trying to make.. That point was that a vote of 48% for Australia pulling out of Paris is regarded as a significant win whereas a vote of 48% for remaining in the EU has been regarded as a significant lose. I was making no comment on costs per se but on the way the question was worded.

          26

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Huh?????

            You can’t have earned a PhD.

            Although considering the change in society and education over the last 20 years, I suppose anything’s possible now.

            20

            • #
              Ian

              Well I actually did and more than 20 years ago as well and in a lab based project where I had to devise and perform my own experiments.

              I suspect the nearest you’ve got to a university is driving past one

              00

          • #
            Annie

            Red herrings are swimming around here methinks. It’s a whole different set-up between the Brexit vote and the one here you are so busily comparing it with.

            31

    • #
      manalive

      Forget opinion polls.
      Let consumers decide on their monthly or quarterly bills what form of energy they wish to pay for.

      70

      • #

        With “System fail” surcharge and default to at time market rate plus standard mark up for the duration of ALL times 100% of that type of energy could not be supplied.
        or
        Automated load shedding during non availability OF THAT TYPE.

        30

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…48% is a lose not a win …..’

      Yeah but 26% of Greens want to pull out of the Paris agreement, which is indicative of something.

      100

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        And 11% who don’t care either way. Making a good 37% who don’t “want” it.

        40

      • #
        Dennis

        Less than half of Australian voters registered recorded a Yes for SSM via the postal survey, quite a few didn’t bother to participate, many were too disgusted to bother.

        The legislation to change the Marriage Act proceeded.

        60

    • #
      sophocles

      The “Hip Pocket Nerve” is a well known political pressure point.

      That question is so blatantly directed t the hip pocket

      Could it be because that is where the electorate’s noise, plaints, unrest and unhappiness is coming from?
      No politician with any sense ignores that nerve. It seems pretty accurately targeted, to me.

      Why does coal burning electricty generation have to languish?
      Look at the advantages it’s given Australia since the 1950s, why throw those away?

      The world rid itself of Windmills over the nineteenth century because of their unreliability and high ( = expensive) maintenance. Why should the world return to them?

      The elephant in the room is: what is wrong with nuclear?

      110

    • #
      yarpos

      what? if you havent noticed one is an Australian issue and one is in the UK. different communities of people and commentators. Talk about false equivalence.

      30

    • #

      No one asked me.

      00

  • #

    Good morning Jo,
    What a truly great day/week you have ‘snap-shot’ here!
    This must surely be the ‘beginning of the end’ for all those ‘Parisite climate scam cultists’!!
    I truly can’t wait to see the mid-terms in November.
    Not to mention the 2.5 million extra jobs they already have post-Obama. (Oops, said not to mention…!)
    But what I am looking forward to even more so is Trudeau joining the Australian Left leaders’ “Flavour of the Month” Club!
    (Keating/Rudd/Gillard only winning one term and Whitlam only three years in office!)
    The next 1-2 years is going to be an amazing time of “rejoicing song & dance”!
    A time when all of us reformed warmists can stick our chests out loud & proud & say …
    “I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so”!!
    Keep up the truly Planet-saving work Jo.
    Ever-increasingly-warm regards,
    Reformed Warmist of Logan.

    140

  • #
    Ruairi

    A populist skeptical rise,
    Could give leaders some shock and surprise,
    Making governments fall,
    If they didn’t play ball,
    And cut warmists and Greens down to size.

    160

  • #
    sceptic56109

    I live in Ontario, Canada. For the last 2-3 years, whenever a provincial or federal candidate called me asking for donations, I would tell them that I would not do so until I heard them starting a discussion about actual evidence that CO2 could cause global warming. It is so obvious that the effect of 3% of the greenhouse gas, only 3% of which mankind generates, could be statistically significant.
    It is my understanding that the EPA endangerment finding relied heavily on the Hockey Schtick Theory.
    The IPCC has no idea what the equilibrium climate sensitivity is.
    Global Warming enthusiasts tell me that each kwh produced by a windmill reduces the world’s carbon footprint by 400 grams of coal.

    All I can say to Al Gore’s acolytes is “PROVE IT”. Show me 2 greenhouses side by each, one heated by atmospheric air and the other one heated by pure CO2. Which one is fractionally warmer after a day in the sun.

    151

  • #
    TedM

    Very refreshing, around half of Australians are still capable of thought.

    70

  • #
    Senex

    It’s not exactly true that the Ontario Liberals’ loss was directly Trudeau’s. Provincial parties in Canada are independent of the Federal parties, at least formally. Kathleen Wynne, the former provincial premier was hugely unpopular, not least because of the green energy policies, but their loss is definitely a warning to the Feral Government.

    60

  • #
    Senex

    BTW the Federal Environment Minister Kathleen McKenna is derisively referred to as Climate Barbie by her detractors….

    70

  • #
    pat

    politicians have media advisers…too many of them. what do they do all day? sip wine with the ABC/Fairfax/Guardian types from the Canberra gallery?

    with NEG talk ongoing, how come not a single politician has informed the public about the New Scientist/Imperial College “wind drought” story that has so far only appeared in Daily Mail, UK Express and Wales Online, (plus BBC kind of – see below) as far as I can tell:

    from Daily Mail: Britain’s wind turbines have been at a standstill for the last six weeks…

    19 Jul: principia-scientific.org: Britain’s Wind Drought Exposes Big Green’s Epic Stupidity
    Written by Ciaran McGrath, UK Express
    New figures compiled by Imperial College London’s Rod Gross revealed July’s wind output was down by 40 percent so far compared with the same period last year.
    He said: “We’ve been typically doing between two to three gigawatts of wind [generation].
    “At a windier time of the year we might be doing nine or 10.”…

    ***Ireland is also facing similar problems with a lack of wind, and falling water levels have restricted hydroelectric power generation in July…
    LINK Express…

    from comments:
    Joseph A Olson: During the summer doldrums in Texas, the giant bird shredders must draw power from the grid to keep the fiberglass blades from warping in the heat. Along the Gulf Coast, the salty sea breeze is reducing turbine life to seven years, with enormous ‘recycling’ costs.
    Funding bobblehead professors to teach Chicken Little science with Jack in the Beanstalk solutions is no way to run a nation.
    https://principia-scientific.org/britains-wind-drought-exposes-big-greens-epic-stupidity/

    ***try finding a single Irish MSM piece on this. nothing but puff pieces promoting “unreliables” found online.

    as for BBC – no mention of New Scientist/Imperial College, basically just what you see excerpted here. bland as you can get. their hearts are not in it. all ***comments I have seen are SCATHING:

    19 Jul: BBC: SSE profits hit as hot weather affects wind turbines
    SSE has said its first-quarter profits will be £80m lower than expected after the recent hot weather affected its wind turbines.
    The energy firm said the lack of wind during its first quarter meant that output from its offshore and inland farms was 15% lower than planned.

    SSE also said that warm temperatures reduced household demand for energy.
    It added that during the three months to 30 June the high wholesale cost of gas had affected the business.
    In addition, SSE said the amount of electricity generated from its hydro power stations was 20% lower than expected, but was ahead of the first-quarter last year.

    SSE’s share price fell 2.8% to £13.45.
    SSE chief executive Alistair Phillips-Davies said: “This new financial year has so far been characterised by lower than expected output of renewable energy and persistently high gas prices, but looking ahead, we are very focused on fulfilling our obligations to energy customers and delivering on our key priorities.”
    The company published the trading update ahead of its annual general meeting on Thursday.
    ***COMMENTS: 196 READ SOME… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44882862

    20

  • #
    pat

    comment in moderation re 19 Jul: principia-scientific.org: Britain’s Wind Drought Exposes Big Green’s Epic Stupidity

    everything I wrote at the beginning of that comment is relevant to the following INSANITY:

    20 Jul: BBC: Smart meters to cut energy bills by just £11, say MPs
    Customers who get smart meters installed are expected to save just £11 a year off their energy bills, a group of MPs has found.
    It was originally thought that the new meters would save consumers at least £26.
    In one of the most critical reports yet on the £11bn programme, the MPs also said the government was now likely to miss its own deadline…

    Grant Shapps, the chair of the British Infrastructure Group of Parliamentarians (BIG), said the programme had been “plagued by repeated delays and cost increases, with suppliers now almost certain to miss the 2020 deadline, and programme benefits likely to be slashed even further.”…

    Customers have financed the smart meter programme by paying a levy on their energy bills, while suppliers have frequently blamed the levy for rising costs.
    However the report claimed most of the eventual savings would be made by energy firms, rather than consumers.
    “The roll-out is consequently at serious risk of becoming yet another large scale public infrastructure project delivered well over time and budget, and which fails to provide energy customers with a meaningful return on their investment,” said Mr Shapps…

    ‘Going dumb’
    The MPs also said some suppliers had been engaging in “scare tactics” to convince customers to have a meter installed, in order for targets to be reached.
    Such tactics included firms telling customers that their bills would go up unless they agreed to have a meter, or that their old meter was dangerous.

    The report also said that:
    ◾Obsolete meters, which don’t always work when a customer switches supplier, will continue to be rolled out until next year
    ◾More than half of smart meters “go dumb” after switching, meaning they stop communicating with the supplier
    ◾Up to 10% of smart meters don’t work, because they are in areas where mobile phone signals are not strong enough
    ◾By the end of the year only 22% of households will have the meters installed, meaning the 2020 deadline is certain to be missed
    ◾The eventual cost of the programme could even outweigh the benefits

    ***The MPs said the government should now plan for the roll-out to be completed by 2022, and that supply of the new generation of smart meters should be sped up.
    They also said customers should be automatically compensated for each day their meter malfunctions.

    Response
    The report was signed by 92 MPs.
    ***However the government said it was wrong to call dumb meters “obsolete”…

    The National Audit Office is already investigating the economic case for the roll-out of smart meters, and is due to report sometime this summer.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44903471

    ***how extraordinary the MPs recommend the Govt speed up installation? plus how ridiculous to be still doing a cost-benefit analysis!

    30

    • #
      yarpos

      “Obsolete meters, which don’t always work when a customer switches supplier”

      ??? the obsolete meters somehow know to stop working because billing has changed?

      10

  • #
    pat

    two comments have gone into moderation.

    10

  • #
    ROM

    .
    A week is a long time in politics”
    .
    I can’t remember who made that quote above but so many times as I see politically based events unfold I am reminded of that quote.

    A part of human fraility is for us to expect that if something changes, the rest of the surrounding political, economic and cultural trappings will continue on unchanged.
    We see this atitude continually in what purports to be climate science propounded by what claims and purports to be climate scientists.

    Predictions whether political, scientitfic, economic and etc are made on the basis of present conditions remaining as is for the foreseeeable future and in the grossly misplaced belief that there will be no changes from the present situation even if those predictions have a dynamic that will inevitably change the future conditions under which the prediction is supposedly to become reality.

    Abbot along with his cabinet stopped the boats amid an uproar over the inhumanity of it all.
    That has given the european anti refugee parties an excuse and an example and in a number of cases , the path to power [ Italy, Poland, The Czechs, the Austrians, the Swiss and etc ] of what can be done to stop the economic carpet baggers from Africa just continuing to pour across the Mediterranean to Europe.

    Trump has blown the carbon fixation of the progressive european elites right out of the water by the Americans , no longer signators to the Paris agreement, who are now the by far the largest reducers of CO2 emmissions in the world.

    Meanwhile the amazingly hypocritical and self delusional European elites viciously chastise Americans and everybody else not exactly following their instructions whilst their own CO2 emmissions continue to rise across every european nation that is supposedly following the dictates of the Paris agreement.

    The actions of the voters in Ontario will have some very significant impacts on politicians who might already harbor doubts about the direction they are following in both forcing their voters to follow completely unproven dictatorial and imposed solutions to prevent a problem that has not yet been proven by anybody to actually exist in the real world outside of some climate models of very doubtful provenance.

    And in doing so forcing again their voters and public to accept vastly increased costs of electricity, a reduction in employment, an acceptance that they, the voters will never again be assured of a reliable electricity supply with the forced imposition of wind turbines and solar panel systems onto the public at the expense of the much cheaper, reliable and predictable long standing and long proven fossil fuel generators..

    Ontario’s voting results are going to make a very large number of climate change nervous nellies in the political game begin to shake a little in their boots as the realise the implications for their own political survival arising from the Ontario results..

    And the more nervous they get, the sooner they will begin to advocate, even behind the scenes for the whole damn climate change fixation and unaffordable and civilisation handicapping renewable energy transition just be abandoned as a completely failed politically inspired change to society which of course, they personally never backed and had nothing to do with.
    [ Do I need a sarc/ there ]

    And when those political numbers begin to go against the renewables and the whole damn climate change meme then stand back as the political rats try to be the first of the very fast sinking climate change / renewable energy ship.

    Oh to be a fly on the wall of the Candian Liberals as they dissect what went so wrong with their adherence to the dictates of the European and their own academic elites re climate change, carbon taxes, renewable energy and others things political and not so political but real life living for those far below them on the social status scale..
    ————

    And to add icing to the cake, George Soros, the 87 year old multi billionaire financing a good part of the American antifata thugs and many other violence prone outfits in the USA as well as being an advocate of a no border world allowing people from anywhere to go where they want to without limits and the financier of much of the thuggery being promoted against Trump and his supporters and conservatives across the USA has just given an interview to the NYT where he laments that everything he has worked for to change global society [ arrogance and hubris has no limits ] has failed as people, nations and the world simply ignores every liberal theme he has espoused and that he has poured his hundreds of millions of dollars into over his lifetime.

    110

    • #
      sophocles

      A week is a long time in politics …”

      I think that phrase was attributed to Harold Wilson, somewhere or somewhen in the ’60s.

      Oh to be a fly on the wall of the Candian Liberals as they dissect …

      Oh yes! Most interesting it would be. Indeed. Do you think anyone will ‘will write the book‘ to make into the movie?

      40

    • #
      yarpos

      “the world simply ignores every liberal theme he has espoused and that he has poured his hundreds of millions of dollars into over his lifetime”

      would never cross his mind that maybe, just maybe, he is wrong would it?

      70

      • #
        ROM

        Humbleness and and a high level of introspection are not known to be self evident traits of multi billionaires.

        Self absorption, a mentality that is quite definite that they are never wrong and a thin skin padded with $1000 notes are the more evident characteristics of multi billionaires.

        Darn! I should stop describing Elon Musk in such glowing terms!

        60

        • #
          yarpos

          I fear for Elon’s mental health. He does appear to be in a bit of a spiral.

          Articles question his leadership and the fate of Tesla are starting to appear in places previously allocated to undying fanboyism

          30

  • #
    Greg in NZ

    Meanwhile, here in the Shaky Isles, according to this Fairfax-sponsored article: “Climate change’s impact is no longer coming.” Praise be to King Obama’s miracle-working! “In every metre of land nibbled from the North Waikato coast at Sunset Beach, Malcolm Beattie can see it’s already here.” Oh no – the Boy Wonder failed – Godzilla’s real after all!

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105161690/Climate-change-induced-erosion-slowly-eating-away-Port-Waikato

    Even though the usual suspects are reeled out to convince us dumb plebs it’s all our fault – Victoria University’s climate scientist James Renwick and the Greens’ Climate Change Minister James Shaw – the comments section is a breath of fresh air, with level-headed observations from boaties, surfers, and other coastal dwellers, explaining this sand-bar at the mouth of a very large river has come and gone over the eons due to the vagaries of wind, rain, tide, swell… a la Nature.

    “At a national level, public consultation on the Zero Carbon Act closed on July 19… Paris Agreement… reverse the effects of climate change… because New Zealand contributes about 0.17 per cent of the world’s total emissions.”

    0.17 % – that’s all folks!

    100

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      You think you’ve got problems.

      Here in Australia the Liberal Government, headed by our President Trumble has created a new Isotope of CO2.

      Designated CO2g to signify its origin from the combustion of “Natural” Gas, this isotope does not have the capacity to create “Global Warming” and is considered by political scientists to be a harmless bye product of gas fired electricity generators.

      The science continues to unfold as we watch our electricity bills rise.

      KK

      130

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Also known as the Trumble particle, he also discovered the CO2 CAT isotope that only yields results when placed in a freezer.

        30

  • #
    pat

    ???

    17 Jul: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: Soros Paid Al Gore MILLIONS To Push ‘Aggressive US Action’ On Global Warming
    Liberal billionaire George Soros gave former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental group millions of dollars over three years to create a “political space for aggressive U.S. action” on global warming, according to leaked documents.

    A document published by DC Leaks shows Soros, a Hungarian-born liberal financier, wanted his nonprofit Open Society Institute (OSI) to do more to support global warming policies in the U.S. That included budgeting $10 million in annual support to Gore’s climate group over three years…

    It’s unclear what year the memo was sent, but the Gore co-founded Alliance for Climate Protection (ACP) was established in 2006 and lasted until it became The Climate Reality Project in July 2011. In 2008, the Alliance launched a $300 million campaign to encourage “Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,” The Washington Post reported.

    ACP got $10 million from the Open Society Institute (OSI) in 2008, according to the nonprofit’s tax filings. OSI handed over another $5 million to ACP in 2009, according to tax filings. The investigative reporting group ProPublica keeps a database that has OSI tax returns from 2000 to 2013. TheDCNF could not find other years where OSI gave money to ACP…

    OSI didn’t only plan to fund Gore’s climate group to promote global warming policies in the U.S., OSI also planned on giving millions of dollars to spur the “youth climate movement.”
    “This budget item also allows for the renewal of U.S. Programs’ long-standing support of the Energy Action Coalition, which is the lead organizer of the youth climate movement in the U.S., the memo reads.

    “We are also including a placeholder for an additional $2 million, pending discussion about and development of OSI’s global warming agenda,” the memo reads. “There is a memo from Nancy Youman in the strategic plans binder that recommends pathways forward for OSI on the climate issue – in the U.S., as well as in other parts of the Open Society Network.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/17/soros-paid-al-gore-millions-to-push-aggressive-us-action-on-global-warming/

    40

  • #
    jpm

    It seems to me that there is a problem comparing Ontario’s price for electricity with ours. Here in NSW the price per KWh quoted includes retail charges, average cost of wholesale electricity, transmission and distribution charges, the global warming fund (not sure if that is the correct name), RET costs etc. according to a document from the authorities. The price varies from location to location , line losses, additional transmission infrastructure, density of users in the area etc. My brother in law in Sydney pays quite a bit less per KWh than we do here on the south coast.
    I have a feeling that some of these are listed separately in Ontario and that the price quoted is the wholesale price of electricity with the other charges itemised separately but still having to be paid. I would be very interested to know if that is so. If that 11 cents per KWh hour is for all of the above, I am paying three times what they are.
    Also there are usually three levels of billing, residential, commercial and industry, to make things even harder to compare.
    I remember back in 1969 when I moved from Ontario to NSW that the price of electricity was pretty cheap in Ontario compared to what we were paying here. I am interested to know if some misunderstanding is occurring due to difference in billing.
    John

    50

    • #
      Peter C

      Is there a reader from Ontario who can help explain their electricty bill?

      10

      • #
        Steve

        The electricity bills in Ontario do have separate lines for wholesale cost, transmission, distribution, green energy surcharges, paying down the debt of previous energy suppliers, etc. etc. Some of these costs depend on the time of day and the total energy usage, and others don’t. So it’s a little complicated to work out the “average” and it depends a lot on when you use electricity. Not long ago (last year), the wholesale cost ranged from 8 cents to 18 cents depending on time of day. The other charges would add around 5 cents to that, give or take a bit. I can look up my actual numbers later. But they’ve reduced the wholesale cost now (by borrowing money from future generations!) so 11 cents is not far off for average wholesale cost. The total with the rest of the charges might be closer to 20 cents…

        00

        • #

          Another broadbrush way to do it is to just compare average monthly total bills. Ours is $310 pm. I suppose I should dig out the KWh

          10

          • #
            Steve

            Yep. Mine was $85 for 571 kWh. Including taxes that’s around 15 cents per kWh, but without the $6 subsidy financed by public debt, it would be closer to $91 or 16 cents/kWh.

            00

  • #
    old44

    If I lived in Canada I would be praying for Global Warming, any sort of warming come to that.

    50

    • #
      yarpos

      can get quite warm in Canada in the summer, but they have those pesky things called seasons

      20

      • #
        Annie

        A relative there says that the Creston Valley (fruit- growing area) can get to 38C and fairly humid in the summer. It was reasonably warm when we visited but we ran into a nasty blizzard on the way back into Alberta ( well back down from Crows Nest btw) on the 4th October. I’ve photos of the storm blowing up and all those wind turbines against the blackness of the cloud.

        31

        • #
          yarpos

          My old boss came from Toronto, he used to talk about Americans coming up in the summer during the 70s and 80s with skis on their roof racks.

          He had a good line when we came in during winter grizzling about a grey Melbourne morning “pussies! at least if you go out in the wrong clothes you dont die!”

          20

  • #
    pat

    they have the wrong answer for everything!

    20 Jul: TheNationalScotland: WWF Scotland calls for renewables boost as SSE reveals wind power blow
    A DROP in wind power while solar soared proves Westminster must support a renewables mix, it is claimed – as subsidy support ends.
    By Kirsteen Paterson
    Environmental charity WWF said the latest results from power giant SSE prove the need for a range of eco-energy schemes as conditions change.
    The Perth company revealed an £80 million fall in predicted first-quarter profits after hot, calm conditions saw consumer demand fall and wind turbines stay still…

    Hannah Smith of industry body Scottish Renewables, said: “Government proposals to close the scheme in its entirety, by its own admission, risk both jobs in the sector and decreases in deployment levels of small-scale low carbon generation.”
    She went on: “At a time when we need to make our energy system smarter and develop a strong post-Brexit economy, denying a future for these technologies makes no sense.
    “It is crucial now that we protect these benefits by delivering meaningful support.”…

    However, Smith says previous cuts to the tariff have been followed by a drop in deployment of hydro and wind projects, with some firms entering liquidation and others facing “significant uncertainty”…
    SSE said higher levels of snow melt in the first three months of the year had boosted hydro power output, but “poorer than average wind conditions” had seen electricity production from both onshore and offshore turbines drop by around 15 per cent of projections.

    Gina Hanrahan, acting head of policy at WWF Scotland, told The National: “While we have seen wind output drop during this recent hot weather, solar power has soared, demonstrating how a strong mix of renewables technologies can combine to help us tackle climate change…
    “The latest data shows that households in cities across Scotland, including Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Perth, could have enjoyed more than 130 per cent of their electricity for the whole month of June from solar energy alone.
    “Renewables are increasingly central to our energy system. To make sure we have a clean, resilient power system we need clear UK Government support for a mix of renewables, particularly low cost onshore wind and solar, together with storage, flexibility and efforts to reduce electricity demand.”
    http://www.thenational.scot/news/16366022.wwf-scotland-calls-for-renewables-help-as-sse-profits-drop/

    20 Jul: EnergyVoice: Scottish renewables firms forced into ‘liquidation’ by government decision
    by David McPhee
    Scottish Renewables accused the government of causing “significant uncertainty” and that the proposed closure of the scheme has “worrying consequences for the already struggling small-scale renewables sector” in Scotland…
    Hannah Smith, senior policy manager at Scottish Renewables, labeled the decision a “risk to jobs” and deployment of low-carbon energy.

    She said: “While we are pleased to see this consultation published, it has some worrying consequences for the already struggling small-scale renewables sector.
    “The picture for this part of our industry isn’t especially rosy. Since previous cuts to the Feed-in Tariff there has been a drop off in deployment of technologies such as hydro schemes and small-scale wind.
    “That, coupled with considerable delay to the publication of this consultation, has already forced businesses into liquidation and created significant uncertainty as to whether small-scale energy generation can survive in the UK…
    https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/177207/scottish-renewables-firms-forced-into-liquidation-by-government-decision/

    so much for not needing subsidies.

    30

    • #
      ivan

      If you follow Gridwatch http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ you will see that wind has been providing about 1% of demand for the last few weeks.

      The reason the renewable companies are going into liquidation is to stop them having to pay for dismantling and removal of the useless monstrosities and their hundred ton foundations – expect to see the same with Australian companies leaving a blot on the landscape for years.

      30

  • #
    pat

    “affordable warmth”:

    19 Jul: BusinessGreen: Government confirms fuel poverty refocus for £6bn ECO energy efficiency scheme
    by Michael Holder
    The latest phase of ECO running from autumn this year until March 2022 has been refocused on ‘affordable warmth’ rather than carbon reduction.
    ECO, the UK’s flagship £6bn domestic energy efficiency scheme, is being refocused on upgrading more than one million fuel poor homes over the next three and a half years, the government confirmed today.
    The Energy Company Obligation (ECO) scheme requires larger energy companies to supply heating and energy efficiency measures to domestic properties.

    And the government also confirmed that as previously mooted the ECO requirement for energy suppliers to promote carbon saving measures has been axed in favour of a refocus on delivering “affordable warmth”. As such energy efficiency improvements will have to be targeted at households that officially qualfy as fuel poor…
    The government’s consultation response published today confirms its intention to remove the Carbon Emissions Reduction Obligation (CERO) arm of the scheme and instead refocus on “affordable warmth”…

    Pedro Guertler, senior policy advisor at green thinktank E3G, welcomed the focus on fuel poverty, longer term outlook and reconfiguration of ECO’s rules, but warned the amount of energy efficiency investment in the scheme remained “far short of what is needed to meet fuel poverty targets”.
    “At least twice as much support is needed for low income households who struggle with their energy bills,” he said. “Energy efficiency is the only permanent solution to fuel poverty. The governments of Scotland and Wales grasp this, who, including ECO support, invest four times and twice as much per capita respectively in low income household energy efficiency as is invested in England.

    He added: “The CCC recently reported that home insulation rates have crashed by 95 per cent since 2012. The new ECO will drive just one eighth of the insulation rate that the National Infrastructure Commission says is needed from 2020 to decarbonise our energy system at no extra cost to households…

    A recent report from the IPPR think tank (LINK) calculated that based on the current rate of energy efficiency improvements it will take the goverment six decades to meet its fuel poverty targets…
    https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news-analysis/3036187/government-confirms-fuel-poverty-refocus-in-gbp6bn-eco-energy-efficiency-scheme

    00

  • #
    pat

    20 Jul: BusinessGreen: Net Zero: Judge blocks judicial review hearing for UK carbon target case
    by Michael Holder
    Climate campaign group Plan B says it is “surprised and disappointed” after the High Court today turned down its application for a full Judicial Review hearing of its case against the government over the UK’s existing carbon targets.
    Director of Plan B, Tim Crosland, told BusinessGreen the group would be lodging an appeal against the decision, and that its legal team was preparing the grounds for appeal “as we speak”.

    At a hearing earlier this month, Plan B argued the government’s failure to boost its current target under the Climate Change Act (CCA) to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent against 1990 levels by 2050 is illegal, irrational, and a breach of the claimants’ fundamental human rights…

    But Plan B – which has secured support from a number of high profile figures including the government’s former chief scientific advisor Sir David King – has argued there is no reason to delay strengthening the target and that the current goals are not compatible with the Paris Agreement.

    The group, which brought the case alongside 11 citizens aged from nine to 79, maintains that while the 80 per cent target set under the 2008 Climate Change Act (CCA) was designed to deliver emissions reductions that would mean the UK made a fair contribution to keeping global temperature increases this century below 2C, more recent scientific evidence and the UK’s obligations under the Paris Agreement require the government to adopt a more ambitious target.

    However, the judge today argued (LINK) the 80 per cent target “is compatible with the Paris Agreement” and that the CCC has said the current goal “is consistent with a wide range of global temperature outcomes”. As such he ruled that the case should not proceed to a full Judicial Review…
    https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3036302/net-zero-judge-blocks-judicial-review-hearing-for-uk-carbon-target-case

    10

    • #
      pat

      meant to draw attention to the involvement of former chief scientist – Prof Sir David King – in the court action:

      27 Sept 2017: BBC: Climate change: Ministers should be ‘sued’ over targets
      By Roger Harrabin
      Ministers should tighten the UK’s official climate change target – or face the courts, the government’s former chief scientist has said.
      Prof Sir David King is supporting a legal case forcing ministers to shrink carbon emissions to zero by 2050.
      He says the current government goal – an 80% emissions cut by the same date – is too weak to protect the climate…

      Potential catastrophe
      “This is crazy,” Prof King told the BBC. “The government knows very well what needs to be done – but it isn’t doing it.
      “If it takes legal action to force ministers to behave properly, then so be it – I’ll support it.”
      Prof King is backing a preliminary legal action by a tiny group, Plan B, run by former government lawyer Tim Crosland…
      Mr Crosland has written to Mr Clark and says if there is no satisfactory reply after 14 days, he will take the case to the High Court for judicial review…

      His case would be argued in court by Jonathan Crow, Attorney General to Prince Charles, and a former senior Treasury lawyer.
      Mr Crosland says his co-claimants are a rabbi “who learned not to ignore a humanitarian crisis”; young people fearing for the future; and a supporter from Mauritius representing island states at risk from rising sea water…

      ClientEarth, one of the UK’s most successful environment groups over the past decade, has pioneered the use of the courts to deliver environmental policies.
      Jonathan Church, a climate lawyer with the group, said: “We hope that Plan B’s claim will help draw attention to the urgency of the challenge we face and ensure that our government keeps its eye on the goals agreed in Paris.”…
      https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41401656

      reminder, as if we need it. quite amusing given Stephen Harper’s connection to this thread:

      Feb 2015: ClimateScepticsParty: Lord Monckton and the push to get rid of PM Abbott
      An extract from Lord Monckton’s presentation:

      David King was asked whether all the nations of the world were now, in principle, ready to sign their people’s rights away in such a treaty. Yes, but there are two standouts. One is Canada. But don’t worry about Canada. They’ve got an election in the Spring of 2015 and we and the UN will make sure the present government is removed. He was quite blunt about it.

      The other hold out is Australia. And Australia we can’t do anything about because Tony Abbott is in office until after the December 2015 conference. So that means you all have to guard Tony Abbott’s back. Because the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the UN, will be doing their absolute level best to remove your elected Prime Minister from office before the end of his term and , in particular, before the end of 2015, so that they can get 100% wall-to-wall Marxist agreement. They do not want any stand-outs. And the most likely stand-out at the moment is Australia. So look after him.
      http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/02/lord-monckton-and-push-to-get-rid-of-pm.html

      30

  • #
    Dennis

    I found this elsewhere …

    “An anonymous source today has told CNN that Vladimir Putin Has Ties to Russia and Donald Trump was aware of it!”

    LOL

    90

  • #
    pat

    19 Jul: Edie.net: Liverpool to use blockchain technology to become world’s first climate-positive city
    Liverpool City Council has announced a new partnership with a blockchain platform company to offset more than 110% of its carbon emissions, with the city announcing its bid to become the world’s first climate-positive city by the end of 2020.
    Liverpool City Council (LCC) will conduct a year-long trial with the Poseidon Foundation to use a blockchain platform to offset the carbon impact of all products and services in the city by supporting global forest conversation projects…

    Blockchain is viewed as one of the ‘essential eight’ emerging technologies by PwC that will play a crucial role in tackling issues around climate and biodiversity…
    The organisation’s blockchain platform is already been used by Ben & Jerry’s to offset the environmental impact of producing ice cream. In just three weeks, more than 1,000 trees had been protected through carbon credit purchases at a London Scoop Shop in Wardour Street.
    https://www.edie.net/news/8/Liverpool-to-use-blockchain-technology-to-become-world-s-first-climate-positive-city/

    29 May: Forbes: Ben & Jerry’s Bets On Blockchain To Cancel Out The Carbon In Every Scoop
    by Oliver Smith
    Meet Poseidon
    Ben & Jerry’s carbon credits pilot is the brainchild of Laszlo Giricz, the Swiss founder of the Poseidon Foundation.
    After 17 years as a consultant developing trading platforms for banks like JPMorgan and UBS, Giricz realized that one of the world’s biggest markets, worth €49 billion ($54.7 billion) in Europe alone, wasn’t working properly…

    The not-for-profit is also working on an app which will help consumers keep track of the carbon offsets they’re buying from Ben & Jerry’s and other stores in the future, as well as helping to calculate and buy their own offsets directly from Poseidon…
    “And I think people will be shocked actually, in a positive way, when they see how affordable carbon credits can become.”
    On a $3 cup of coffee Giricz says the carbon offset would cost less than two cents…

    Meanwhile, there are growing numbers of companies around the world (LINK) harnessing blockchain for another environmental good, the buying and selling of solar power…
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliversmith/2018/05/29/ben-jerrys-bets-on-blockchain-to-cancel-out-the-carbon-in-every-scoop/#60b82eee688c

    more to come.

    00

    • #
      pat

      Forbes links to:

      16 Oct 2017: The Memo: Three companies democratising sunshine with Blockchain
      By Anna Schaverien
      Empowering the solar panel generation
      3. Power Ledger
      This Australian startup is using blockchain sunshine to make buying energy cheaper for people who don’t have access to solar panels themselves.
      Power Ledger is piloting peer-to-peer trading schemes in four social housing blocks in Australia and they’re planning a nationwide trial in New Zealand.
      “It’s the people who are socially or financially marginalised, that will face the increasing cost of energy,” Power Ledger co-founder, ***David Martin, told The Memo.

      To avoid the spike in energy prices, the residents will be offered the chance to buy energy from people who have an excess amount of solar power.
      They get the power at “mates prices” rather than having to pay the extortionate sums that are often charged by electricity companies.
      Although it’s only operating Down Under at the moment, Power Ledger wants to expand across Europe, Asia and South America…
      https://www.thememo.com/2017/10/16/three-companies-democratising-sunshine-with-blockchain/
      7 March 2017: The Memo: Blockchain is democratising sunshine – that’s very cool
      By Kitty Knowles
      The problem is, not everyone’s able to capture this golden gift, and those who do, are finding it difficult to share around.
      Luckily one business is on a mission to change that: Power Ledger is using blockchain to democratise sunshine.
      ***David Martin co-founded Power Ledger last year to help everyone get the most out of solar energy…

      “It’s the people that can’t afford panels that suffer,” says Martin.
      “It’s the people who are socially or financially marginalised, that will face the increasing cost of energy.”…
      In fact, today Power Ledger is not only running a pilot scheme across four blocks of social housing (about 150 individual housing units) in Australia, it is already planning trials on a national level in New Zealand’s through the country’s biggest energy company, Vector…

      ***LinkedIn: David Martin, Co-founder and Managing Director. Power Ledger Pty Ltd, Perth WA
      David has nearly 20 years’ experience in the Western Australia Electricity Industry. Having worked in two of the largest and most complex energy utilities in Western Australia, including more than five years as a senior executive of Horizon Power, David has a wealth of skill and experience in the areas of electricity utility management; government, regulator and stakeholder relations; energy sector marketing and branding; contentious issues and crisis management…
      With an extensive background in media management, the management of contentious issues and crisis management, David is able to provide high-level strategic advice on the full range of public relations and stakeholder engagement issues…
      Education: Curtin University
      BA(English), Journalism, Politics, Public Relations
      1990 – 1994

      00

      • #
        pat

        Team of the not-for-profit Poseidon, based in Malta:

        Poseidon Team
        Laszlo Giricz, Founder and CEO
        (About – Team) Laszlo spent 17 years as a business and technology consultant for the world’s largest investment banks, including JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and UBS, across leading financial centres including Tokyo, Toronto and London. During this time, he has developed and deployed trading and risk management systems using complex custom solutions…
        Laszlo saw the weakness in current carbon markets, the opportunity to bring carbon credits to consumers via retailers and the advantages of applying blockchain technologies, which he has brought together in Poseidon. He speaks fluent German, Hungarian and English, and plays polo in his free time…ETC ETC
        https://poseidon.eco/about.html

        25 Apr: IndependentMalta: Malta welcomes the Poseidon Foundation to further expand its blockchain community
        Parliamentary Secretary for Financial Services, Digital Economy and Innovation Silvio Schembri has announced that a further blockchain organisation, the Poseidon Foundation, has domiciled in Malta.
        “Poseidon is a non-profit organisation that uses blockchain technology to empower governments, companies, and individuals to address their carbon footprint with a breakthrough approach that seamlessly integrates climate change impacts into everyday financial transactions. This follows the largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance, announcing its intention to move to Malta last month, as well as another major exchange, OKEx, and blockchain-fundraising platform, Neufund.”

        “Malta aims to be the global trailblazer in the regulation of blockchain-based businesses and the jurisdiction of quality and choice for world class fintech companies. To this end, Malta is setting up a digital innovation authority, called the Malta Digital Technology (Arrangements and Services) Authority, and setting out a legal framework for initial coin offerings (ICOs) that supports innovation and new technologies for financial services whilst ensuring effective investor protection, financial market integrity and financial stability,” a government statement read.
        Part of the Authority’s remit is to promote government policies that favour the development of Malta as a digital technology hub, including the adoption of this technology in the public sector to drive the recognition of Malta as a blockchain leader. “In addition to welcoming Poseidon to its shores, the Maltese government will also be scoping out a pilot programme on the Poseidon platform to support its climate and economic development goals.”…

        Parliamentary Secretary Schembri: “We are thrilled to be working with Poseidon whose values firmly align with our own to truly address climate change meaningfully, through supporting projects that protect our planet.”
        http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-04-25/local-news/Malta-welcomes-the-Poseidon-Foundation-to-further-expand-its-blockchain-community-6736188778

        10

        • #
          Peter C

          The problem is, not everyone’s able to capture this golden gift, and those who do, are finding it difficult to share around.
          Luckily one business is on a mission to change that: Power Ledger is using blockchain to democratise sunshine.

          There does seem to be a problem here and I do not think it is blockchain per se. Blockchain is only an account inning package.

          I would really like to be able to share in all the solar subsidies using virtual solar panels that I don’t actually have.

          40

  • #
    Lewis p Buckingham

    http://www.bom.gov.au/nsw/forecasts/map7day.shtml
    Off Topic
    The forcast for tonight for Perisher Valley is minimum of -10C.
    I wonder if the thermometer will be able to read below -10C.
    We have had records broken in the latest cold snap, Cowra and Dubbo.
    Has BOM fixed the thermometers or are thy inadvertantly set at -11c?
    Has the method of calibration and the actual results for these thermometers been published and independantly verified?

    81

  • #
    PeterS

    Canadians are sick of high electricity prices, and carbon taxes and former PM Stephen Harper says any conservative can win “on that issue alone”

    If that were the case here then the ACP (Australian Conservatives Party) ought to wing the next election. Of course it’s not going to happen, not the least of which because voters are still asleep and so will continue to vote 1 for either LNP or ALP+Greens. I’m still hoping for a hung election as an alternative but I doubt very much that will happen for the same reasons.

    30

  • #
    TdeF

    The trick with the Australian Carbon Tax, the highest in the world by far, is that the Act does not mention the word carbon. Then while it is legislated and compulsory, the government only supervises the forced transaction in ‘Certificates’ which are utterly worthless.

    As Dr. Tom Quirk calculated, it amounts to a carbon tax on coal of $200 a ton and on gas of $400 a ton, where Gillard’s hated Carbon Tax was a real tax at $23 a ton. We are being robbed and the government pretends it has no idea while they talk about fantasy ‘targets’ and ‘subsidies’ and ‘lasering in on prices’. All a smokescreen for the biggest and most dishonest Carbon Tax in the world. As the Australian newspaper reported, at least $3,000 Million goes overseas each year.

    That is why coal people are closing. They cannot compete if retailers have to buy $2 of worthless ‘certificates’ for every $1 of coal, gas or diesel power they buy. Worse, retailers have to have certificates, so they are forced to buy unpredictable power, totally disrupting both the power market and the incomes of coal producers. It is compulsory under Australia law to buy these worthless ‘certificates’.

    The tragedy of Australia is that no one seems to know why Hazelwood closed. Malcolm Turnbull said it was a ‘private company matter’. Absolute rubbish He and Daniel Andrews forced it to close 20 years early. Now he wants his Goldmann Sachs Emissions Trading Scheme and is calling it a National Energy Guarantee. Another huge carbon tax.

    Really only an appeal to the High Court would bring down this evil and illegal ripoff, the RET. Everyone is hurting. Governments are hiring wholesale to hide the mass unemployment, driving Queensland alone into $80Billion in debt and Australia over $500Billion. Before Rudd, there was no debt.

    It’s not about Global Warming. It never was. It’s about turning Australia into a mendicant country, an open cut mine, a tourist destination for our UN and EU and UK masters.

    60

  • #
    pat

    19 Jul: Reuters: German coal imports could fall 12 percent in 2018, trumped by green power
    By Vera Eckert
    Some 70 percent of the coal imported in Europe’s biggest economy goes to power utilities, a quarter to steelmakers and the remainder to heat providers, influencing global coal trade flows and prices at landing ports…
    Data from Germany’s utility lobby BDEW showed renewables accounted for 36.3 percent of Germany’s total generation volume in Jan-June, hard coal for 12.6 percent, and brown coal from domestic mines for 22.5 percent…

    Coal-to-power is still a backbone for the energy system because it provides supply when intermittent renewables do not produce, a task that will become more urgent once Germany exits stable nuclear power generation by 2022…

    Like BDEW, the coal group complained that climate policies by the Berlin government threaten the carbon-polluting industry unilaterally, in order to seek emissions savings, while the transport and heat sectors have made far fewer savings, or even raised CO2 output…
    A committee launched by Berlin to study the timetable for a coal exit would eye further power station closures although anti-coal policies had already resulted in a halving of coal-fired capacity between 1990 and 2018, Wodopia said…
    https://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL8N1UC59Z

    19 Jul: Verein der Kohlenimporteure: Press Release 2/2018 for the Press Conference in Düsseldorf
    Hard coal imports fall sharply – hard coal meets CO2 reduction targets
    The use of hard coal for power generation in Germany has fallen dramatically in 2017 (-17%). For 2018, a decline of more than 20% is expected. This is mainly due to the increased feed-in of renewable energy sources, in particular wind energy. Hard coal has thus already almost fulfilled its contribution to the CO2 reduction targets in the context of the Federal Government’s climate protection plan.

    Therefore, there is no reason to intervene in the ownership of power plants in the framework of the Commission “Growth, Structural Change and Employment” through a phasing out date for power production from coal…

    owever, since the feed-in priority for renewables has already displaced natural gas and hard coal from power generation and the tightening of emissions trading will amplify this effect, an intervention in the property rights is not required and an expiry date for the power production from hard coal thus a violation of the property rights regulated in the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany.

    Phasing out coal would also not help Germany to achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction agreed in Brussels on 14 May 2018 for non-ETS sectors such as industry and transport (Effort Sharing). Until 2030 this area has to independently realize a reduction of 38% compared to 2005!

    It would also be energy-economically counterproductive to impose a burden of adjustment on hard coal above average. Because hard coal power plants are needed for the energy transition. They protect against blackouts during peak loads and as a back-up when it is dark (no solar power) and there is no wind either, but power demand is high. And in contrast to open cycle gas turbines, which have a lower efficiency, coal-fired power plants are reliably available already today…

    After two years of declining global coal production and declining world trade, the market has recovered significantly. New power plants are being built in many emerging and developing countries. The decline in consumption, primarily in Europe, is thereby more than compensated.

    Imported coal is available all over the world and is also needed in Germany for a secure and affordable energy supply. In an open economy, the demand of primary energy sources on the world market is also a contribution to achieving a balance in trade with our partners.
    http://english.kohlenimporteure.de/home.html#slide-11

    00

  • #
    pat

    20 Jul: GWPF: Merkel: Clean Energy Wire: Germany May Also Miss 2030 Climate Target
    The German government will introduce a climate protection law to ensure the country reaches its 2030 climate targets, but achieving these goals will be “very, very challenging”, said Chancellor Angela Merkel during her annual summer press conference. The government recently officially confirmed that Germany’s 2020 emissions reduction target has already slipped out of reach.

    Asked about her 2017 campaign promise to find ways to still reach it, Merkel said: “We made our projections on the basis of the assumptions that were also used in the Climate Action Plan by former environment minister Barbara Hendricks. During the government formation process, we suddenly had new assumptions that made the gap to reaching the 2020 climate target seem bigger.”

    Merkel said her government coalition had now acted by setting up the new coal-exit commission, and that its approach to first resolve the prospects for workers in the lignite regions “and then talk about which lignite power plants we can shut down” was right. “That’s politically reasonable and why the commission will work very fast,” she added…(LINK)
    https://www.thegwpf.com/merkel-germany-may-also-miss-2030-climate-target/

    00

  • #
    PeterS

    OT: Singapore personal data hack hits 1.5m, health authority says. Anyone really believe our medical records won’t ever be hacked? Let me guess. So many will still trust and believe what the government has said that our medical records in the new database will be safe. Yeah tell us another one. Being gullible is now the new fashion.

    30

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    Coal power has to make up for unreliable wind
    The Australian-21 hours ago
    The data also showed coal’s share dropping from 63 to 61 per cent — thanks to the closure of Hazelwood;
    gas up from 18 to 21 per cent and total renewables edging down from 16 to 15 per cent…

    21 Jul: MillenniumPostIndia: Capital could face power crisis due to coal shortage: Jain
    by Roushan Ali
    NEW DELHI: The national Capital may face a power crisis as the coal reserves with the Dadri I and II power stations have diminished, Delhi Power Minister Satyendra Jain said on Friday.
    In a letter to Union Power Minister RK Singh, Jain said the declared capacity of the power station has come down to 934 MW from 1,696 MW.

    “The coal availability there will not last even for a day at full capacity,” he said.”
    The imminent likelihood of shutdown of the thermal power units at Dadri will have an adverse impact on the power supply to Delhi and would cause serious discomfort to the citizens in the hot and humid weather,” Jain wrote to Singh.

    “Your kind intervention in the matter led to augmentation of coal stocks for a while,” Jain wrote to the Union Minister on Friday, adding that the stock position at Dadri has decreased fast over the past four days.”

    Since June 19, the coal stock is continuously declining and has reached approximate 65,000 MT on Wednesday, which is only one-and-a-half days’ requirement,” Jain wrote adding that the “situation is extremely critical.
    Due to onset of monsoon, Delhi’s peak power demand came down to nearly 6,442 mega watt from the previous high of 7,016 MW. Jain requested Singh to intervene and resolve the crisis.

    In an earlier letter, dated June 27, Jain had informed Singh about the shortage of coal supply to the power plants at Dadri, Jhajjar and Badarpur.
    http://www.millenniumpost.in/delhi/capital-could-face-power-crisis-due-to-coal-shortage-jain-310419

    00

  • #
    pat

    Obama would approve of this lot, who obviously agree with him that African countries should leapfrog fossil fuels:

    20 Jul: Reuters: Investor group opposes General Electric plans for Kenyan power plant
    by Sebastien Malo
    (This version of the story has been refiled to correct to $300 billion in paragraph 7.)
    A group of investors in U.S. conglomerate General Electric (GE) has publicly opposed its plans to buy a stake in a Kenyan coal-fired plant, claiming the project would damage the environment and undermine efforts to fight global warming.

    In a public letter to GE, nearly five dozen institutional and individual shareholders called on the company to reverse course on its intentions to purchase a 20 percent stake in a planned 1,000-megawatt coal plant on Kenya’s Lamu island…
    It was unclear how of much GE stock the letter’s signatories hold…

    ***Among those signing the letter was the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, an association of more than 70 United Kingdom-based public sector pension funds with about $300 billion in assets under management. Also signing were several religious groups…

    ***Kenya promised to cut carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030 as part of the agreement in Paris, where nearly 200 countries agreed to fight global warming.

    Such activism by shareholders rarely has the desired effect, said Jonathan Karpoff, professor of finance at the Foster School of Business at the University of Washington.
    “It’s unlikely to have a significant impact on the firm’s decision or value,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. “If it does sway the decision, it was a coin-flip of an investment to begin with.”

    GE signed an agreement in May to design and help build the plant along with Amu Power, a consortium contracted with delivering the $2 billion project.
    With the deal, GE, through its affiliates, also will acquire a stake in Amu.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-general-electric-kenya-coalplant/investor-group-opposes-general-electric-plans-for-kenyan-power-plant-idUSKBN1K934B

    19 Jul: BusinessDay South Africa: Barack Obama urges SA to prioritise unity of citizenry
    by Nick Hedley
    Obama was talking at a mostly unscripted event hosted by his foundation in Johannesburg on Wednesday, a day after he delivered the Nelson Mandela annual lecture…
    The former US president said African states should work together on issues such as trade links and renewable energy programmes, which required economies of scale and often cross-border footprints…

    worth repeating:

    15 Jul: Rejecting carbon colonialism
    By Paul Driessen & David Wojick
    https://canadafreepress.com/article/rejecting-carbon-colonialism

    00

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Several years ago I was walking past a crowd coming out of a soccer game that had just ended.

      Many of them looked high and overexcited and looking for a bit of action. Kicking garbage bins and yelling. On some other planet.

      Reminds me of the impression I’m getting of the anti coal anti CO2 rentacrowd.

      People thrive on being part of a Group; mostly any group will do.

      Why not the group that “saves the planet”.

      KK

      30

  • #
    pat

    After a Fiasco, California Aims Again at Remaking Power Grid
    New York Times – 22h ago
    Two decades ago, a new approach to power delivery led to blackouts. Now the state is considering another energy makeover: a regional electric grid…
    They worry that the proposal will actually increase the use of coal and natural gas at a time when California and hundreds of cities across the country are…

    the following was post online earlier than the above, and seems to cover similar ground:

    19 Jul: GreenTechMedia: New Report Highlights the Benefits and Drawbacks of Regionalizing California’s Grid
    A controversial plan to expand grid markets throughout the Western U.S. gets a generally positive review in a new report—but with important warnings attached.
    by Jeff St. John
    Supporters say it will allow California to access ever-cheaper wind and solar power from across the region, driving down energy costs and boosting jobs and the economy, while pressuring uncompetitive fossil-fuel-fired power plants to shut down.

    Opponents fear it will drive renewables investment and jobs out of state, ***support coal plants owned by Rocky Mountain states utility PacifiCorp and others, and open California grid operator CAISO to losing its independence to determine its own clean energy and carbon reduction future…

    The debate moved into sharp focus as of last month, when state legislators passed through a key committee a bill (AB 813) that would take the first steps toward creating a new regional energy market, giving it a chance to be brought to a vote before an August 31 deadline.

    This week, the nonpartisan Next 10 Foundation released a report, A Regional Power Market for the West: Risks and Benefits (LINK), that weighs both sides of this debate, and largely finds that the benefits of grid regionalization outweigh the potential negative effects.

    However, Paulos also highlighted certain caveats to the report’s conclusions.
    First, it does not include an analysis of a future in which California gets much of its energy from distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar PV, demand response or energy storage. That’s because, as he states in the report, “unfortunately, a distributed-intensive scenario was not included under the SB 350 studies mandated by the state to investigate a Western RTO, nor has it been adequately studied by other agencies, labs, universities, or think tanks.”…

    The Clean Coalition, one of regionalization’s biggest opponents at present — and a participant in the Next 10 report — has argued that California could obtain the same benefits of regionalization through DERs, without the risks and downsides…
    https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/new-report-highlights-benefits-and-drawbacks-of-regionalizing-californias-g#gs.=iCNFVg

    00

  • #
    pat

    Zaremberg is, apparently, anti-coal/pro-”renewables”, but otherwise makes some point which will sound familiar:

    18 Jul: SanDiegoUnionTribune: Commentary: Why a regional power grid brings energy security
    by ALLAN ZAREMBERG
    (Zaremberg is president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce)
    Reliable energy infrastructure is a hallmark of a modern world, and affordable power is vital for economic development and social cohesion. Ensuring that electricity is both affordable and reliable are ultimately the responsibility of our state government leaders when they set the ground rules for how electricity is generated and how it is transmitted around the grid.

    California’s world-leading greenhouse gas reduction efforts have curbed the state’s carbon footprint, but have also resulted in more expensive electricity and greater challenges to utilities to maintain service reliability, issues of great concern to California businesses. Just as the Legislature has led the way in insisting that more of our electricity come from renewable sources, it must also have a plan to ensure that our electricity grid can deliver power when businesses and residents need it, at the most affordable rates possible.

    That’s why business groups are encouraging the Legislature to approve legislation that could reshape the future of the state’s energy infrastructure and lower energy costs for consumers and businesses.

    AB 813, authored by Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, sets the stage for the development of a western regional energy market that would allow California and neighboring states to integrate their energy resources and meet rapidly changing supply and demand conditions in an electricity system increasingly reliant on renewables…

    In the absence of a Western regional market, large swings in electricity oversupply and undersupply conditions could increase, threatening the reliable delivery of power. Both scenarios are occurring with more frequency each passing year. When California renewable energy generators are overproducing, solar and wind plants are forced to curtail their output or sell their energy at a loss — undermining the value of the investments California businesses and homeowners have made. On the other hand, when renewable generation is unable to meet demand, the reliability of the state’s grid is threatened, and California is typically forced to rely on fossil fuel generators that are more expensive, undercut our environmental goals and increase the cost of electricity.

    The economic benefits of such a system are clear. A regional energy market has the potential to reduce energy costs in all participating states by integrating ***diverse generating resources into a single coordinated grid. A recent economic study estimates that a regional system will reduce energy costs for California households and businesses by up to $1.5 billion annually by 2030, along with boosting the state’s economy and income…

    The bill will create a ready market for renewables where one state provides clean power to others during the times when they must now rely on less clean sources of energy like coal…
    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-utbg-california-energy-regional-grid-20180717-story.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    following links to Ben Santer study:

    ScienceMag: Human influence on the seasonal cycle of tropospheric temperature
    by Benjamin D. Santer et al…

    19 Jul: CarbonBrief: ‘Powerful evidence’ of global warming’s effect on seasons found in troposphere
    by Daisy Dunne
    A study published in Science finds that climate change has caused an increase in the difference between summer and winter temperatures across North America and Eurasia over the past four decades.

    This could be the result of summer temperatures warming at a faster rate than winter temperatures in these parts of the world, the lead author tells Carbon Brief.
    The findings show the “substantial human influence on Earth’s climate, affecting not only global averages, but also local and seasonal changes”, another scientist says.

    Most of the world’s weather originates in the troposphere, a second scientist tells Carbon Brief, meaning that changes to seasonal temperatures could be affecting the likelihood of extreme weather events, such as flooding and drought…

    Writing in their research paper, the team, led by Dr Ben Santer, a scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, says:
    “Our results suggest that attribution studies with the changing seasonal cycle provide powerful evidence for a significant human effect on Earth’s climate.”

    For the study, the researchers analysed atmospheric temperature data recorded by satellites throughout the summer and winter months from 1979-2016…

    The model simulations, which ran from 1979-2016, included a range of natural factors that can influence tropospheric temperature, including the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions and aerosols. To include the impact of human-caused climate change, the researchers used a “business-as-usual” emissions scenario known as RCP8.5…

    The results indicate that humans are having a “substantial influence” on the temperatures in the troposphere, says Dr William Randel, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who was not involved in the research…

    ***However, it is not clear how temperature changes in the troposphere could affect conditions at the land surface, he adds:
    “The connection between changes at the surface and the free troposphere ***awaits explanation.”…
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/powerful-evidence-global-warmings-effect-seasons-found-troposphere

    00

  • #

    I am an Albertan and a Canadian. I am afraid Canada may not survive this climate change hysteria.
    Climate change hysteria has local and provincial governments fighting over the transport of goods over provincial borders.
    It has seen an American president use executive powers to limit the export of oil to the U.S.
    It has resulted in two provinces move toward eliminating coal-fired power plants. In Alberta that is extremely ill-advised considering the experience of Ontario and Australia. (Alberta has abundant coal, no nuclear plants, and very limited hydro. The only thing that may save us from the extremely high electricity rates of Ontario or Europe is our abundant natural gas but guess what the next target of the greenies will be.)
    It has empowered cities to actively oppose energy projects. They are usurping, along with some provinces, federal jurisdiction.
    It has allowed half-baked scientists, and academics the power to influence policy that will, without doubt, be very harmful to our economy and detrimental to the comfort of our people.
    All of this is based on an assumption that CO2 is bad. All without any convincing evidence that CO2 has any significant influence at all on climate.
    In Canada, liberal (leftist) power is concentrated in the cities. The wealth-producing resource areas lack political influence. It is only the economic influence that is significant. It is only by demonizing CO2 that this economic influence is lessened by painting the production of resources as evil.
    One other point. Canada’s currency trades as a petrodollar which will, with a healthy resource industry, keep it nearly at par with the U.S. dollar. This puts our antiquated, often subsidized, rather inefficient and mostly city-based manufacturing sector at a disadvantage to other manufacturing based in the U.S., Mexico, or China.
    Trudeau has stated that diversity is our strength. He is absolutely wrong. It is highly divisive.
    Will Canada survive? I sincerely hope so but can only see the rifts widening in the near future.
    Keep an eye on us Australia. I have certainly been watching your experience.
    More information and ramblings at my site rockyredneck.simplesite.

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Trudeau strikes me as ignorant of reality while pretending to understand it. How do whole nations go for such people?

    Were I prime minister, governor or president, anywhere in the world the priority things I would always want to provide would be…

    1. good sanitation

    2. safe abundant water

    3. safe abundant food

    4. the electricity it takes to power modern society

    And items 1 through 3 depend on item 4 today more than ever in the past.

    Taxing anything is an act of destruction. It destroys wealth better than anything else because government can only spend the money. But no matter how they pretend to do it they cannot create wealth.

    30

  • #
  • #
    nc

    Canada has its own version of Pravda, the CBC. It is a taxpayer funded news media, PR arm of the liberal government aka Trudeau. This PR outfit is used to push Trudeau’s carbon tax by headlining any heat wave or heat record, sea level horrors, melting glaciers, lack of snow, more snow, dying seniors with no air-conditioning (they cannot afford the energy cost) well get the drift.

    20

  • #
    Amber

    Canada’s Prime Minister Dress Up has legalized weed hoping tax payers are so stoned when
    he imposes a carbon tax they won’t notice .
    The Liberals promised a $10 billion deficit that is actually coming in at over $28 billion .
    But then again Mr. Dress Up claims budgets balance themselves . Who knew ?

    10