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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper




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


Midweek Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (14 votes cast)
Midweek Unthreaded, 9.4 out of 10 based on 14 ratings

Tiny Url for this post:

134 comments to Midweek Unthreaded

  • #

    The ACCC has now reported on electricity prices. Power rip-offs: ACCC lines up energy giants.
    “While it expressed support for the Turnbull government’s ­national energy guarantee, the ACCC report found that the market it would be expected to operate in was broken and consumers faced an “unfair” and “misleading” system. One of the key recommendations is for government to effectively underwrite the construction of new dispatchable power sources — either baseload coal or gas — by guaranteeing long-term contracts for large industrial and commercial users.”
    “The report found that large “gentailers” — vertically integrated companies that own both retail and generation businesses — had manipulated prices by charging large premiums on the sale of wholesale electricity to their own retail operations.
    State governments needed to do more to bring down network costs — the so-called “gold plating” of the transmission network — that make up the bulk of a household energy bill.
    Greater powers should be provided to the Australian Energy Regulator to address “market ­manipulation”, according to a summary of the report, while discounting schemes that can mislead consumers needed to be more tightly regulated.”
    Is this the first admission that our electricity system is broken?

    The final report of the inquiry, commissioned in March last year by Treasurer Scott Morrison, will be released this morning by ACCC chairman Rod Sims ahead of a headland energy speech to be delivered by Malcolm Turnbull in Brisbane.


    • #
    • #

      Did the ACCC happen to mention the RET and how it manipulated the distribution and costs of power construction?
      Did it mention how totally useless and unreliable wind power is? Did it mention how solar PVs were twisting the balance in the grid?
      Did it mention that batteries and pumped hydro don’t make energy they consume energy and only operate once before consuming more energy to recharge?

      Did the ACCC happen to mention that all this BS green virtue signaling is costing our country it’s economy and industry because CO2 is a vote catcher for the young brought up on group think by climate cronies who can’t get their snout out of the trough.


    • #
      James Murphy

      This “price manipulation” will probably eclipse the price rises associated with adding a resoundingly unreliable level of extremely expensive hardware to the grid. In my view, this is far from being a good long term outcome.

      Mind you, knowing people who are struggling with excessive power bills while being relatively frugal with power consumption, any potential decrease probably shouldn’t be scoffed at.


    • #

      How come they didn’t point out that one of the most significant factors leading up to the power rip-offs is the Paris Agreement itself?


      • #

        All we have at the moment is what the journalists selected for their breaking stories. The devil will hopefully be in the detail to be released later today. And let’s see what Turnbull says in Brisbane.


        • #
          el gordo

          Can’t get behind the paywall, but reading between the lines it looks like they can build Hele.

          ‘Malcolm Turnbull signals support for the competition watchdog’s call for government to underwrite the construction of “firm” low-cost power generation.’



          • #

            Mal’s key words in The Australian this morning are “consider” and “could”. However, there are 12 articles today about energy, when we were lucky to see one every two months. Energy is the #1 talking point right now.


    • #
    • #

      ‘Greater powers should be provided to the Australian Energy Regulator to address “market ­manipulation”’

      Now where have I heard this before…Oh Yeah, Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”: Wesley Mouch in a discussion about the failing economy “I can’t help it. I can’t help it if people refuse to co-operate. I’m tied. I need wider powers”


      • #
        Sceptical Sam


        Ayn Rand. She just keeps on nailing them doesn’t she.

        If government stayed out of it, stopped intervening and got out of Paris, the problem would be solved.

        However, Turnbull and his Cabinet is a modern day version of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Regrettably none of them have any ability. Need I say more?

        Capital is footloose. China and India is calling. There’ll be no 21st Century Motor Company in Australia. And, minimal manufacturing under the stupidity of the current policy settings.


  • #
  • #

    I note the first sentence in the article referenced by Robber.

    “The ACCC said the government can back investment in dispatchable generation such as gas, batteries, or pumped hydro storage for smaller generators to break market monopolies.”

    I would bring to the attention of of the ACCC that batteries and pumped hydro are net energy sinks, not energy sources, assuming that members of that Govt. body have the expertise to understand the difference.


    • #

      Like all good government agencies, this report from the ACCC has been 15 months in the making, with many public submissions. It will be interesting to see how the facts stack up, and whether it stops the calls for a royal commission.


      • #

        Add 10 years since Australia is that far behind the rest of the world in most areas. So the “facts” they used are typically no longer factual.


        • #

          Looking at the rest of the world, do really really want to keep up ? I often look at the cries that Australia is falling behind and when you look at whats going on elsewhere its hard to see what is so superior elsewhere. There maybe just a handful of countries whose policies and methiods are really worth looking at. 10 years behind the bleeding edge is probably not a bad setting.


          • #

            I agree in some areas but wrt to the topic at hand, namely coal fired power stations we are lagging behind very badly. Don’t you read the real news?


          • #
            James Murphy

            Even if, by some miracle, we were deemed to be “leading the world” when it comes to virtue signalling and destroying our economy, it would not be enough. the arguments would switch to “we must do more”, “we can do better”, “we must maintain our position on the global stage”, etc…

            With these implacable zealots, the words may change, but the message never does.


          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            It’d be good to try and keep up with where Pres. Trump has taken the USA.

            Fracking. In.

            Paris. Out.

            Coal. In.

            EPA. Out.

            You get the idea?


  • #

    can’t believe coal was omitted in the 2GB news bulletin story on the ACC report this morning – especially given the pro-coal stance of many on the station:

    updated 19mins ago -

    11 Jul: SBS: AAP: ACCC calls for major energy market reforms
    The report found there should be a cap on any further mergers or acquisitions by a company with more than 20 per cent market share. Building new power generation facilities would be allowed.

    It also recommends governments effectively underwrite the construction of new dispatchable power sources – either baseload COAL or gas – by guaranteeing long-term contracts for large industrial and commercial users…

    Federal resources minister Matt Canavan seized on that recommendation, arguing it bolstered a push among some Nationals MPs for more coal investment.
    “The ACCC has recommended the government underwrite baseload power investments. Once again common sense of the Nationals is vindicated,” he tweeted on Wednesday.

    Mr Frydenberg said the government would carefully consider that recommendation, saying it identified market failure where companies had struggled to get finance…


  • #

    It was fun watching the “locking of horns” between Latham and Richardson. I’m certainly with Latham on this one as he touched a sore nerve on Richardson who has now been exposed as a hypocrite since he himself criticised Shorten on many occasions on the exact same issues. Clearly Richardson didn’t like Latham robocalling for ON despite the fact Richardson in the past agreed with Latham’s views presented in the calls on Shorten. It’s time Richardson to come clean.


    • #

      Seldom watch Paul Murray but I saw that one. Good value. The right has welcomed Latham to the fold in the last few years but he is a powder keg at the best of times. I also saw the episode that got him taken off air when he made a low attack on Andrew Robb who wrote Black Dog Daze about his battle with depression.

      Round 2 next Mon night I believe.


      • #

        I never watch Paul Murray but I did manage to watch it elsewhere after hearing about the shouting match. I might watch the next session though. I agree Latham is a worry but I much prefer him to Turnbull or Shorten. At least Latham has some guts, which is far more than what I can say about any other politician in either major party at the moment. He actually is a little like Trump; direct and doesn’t put up with blatant BS.


  • #

    The electricity consumers need to ask, who pays fore all these inquiries! How many regulators are involved in the electricity industry? All the effort to regulate by government is matched by the operating businesses to supply information and gain competitive advantage from any new regulations.

    If the ACCC find that there is a problem in the electricity market, surely two of the recommendations should be to sack the AER and the AEMC.

    How many new government bodies did the Finkel Inquiry recommend?

    We are still waiting on the AEMO Integrated System Plan.

    We are still waiting on the details on the NEG and for it to become law/regulation. It will impose higher costs on retailers.

    Building three more coal fired power stations adds more cost that has to be recovered from consumers. Meanwhile there is 5500MW of ambient generation currently being built; all has priority access to market under present rules and LGC payments so guaranteed return. Also there will be another 1000MW of rooftop installed behind the meter this year, which is guaranteed a return. In the current market there is already an oversupply of coal generation. This century, NEM electricity demand has been flat while coal has dropped from 80% to 63% market share. Coal is not economic where the demand can be anything on an hourly basis.

    It is apparent none of these enquiries look at the big picture and how “intermittency” costs. This quote is taken from a SMH article on the current ACCC report:

    These wholesale prices have risen on average by 130 per cent between 2015 and 2017. Gentailers have passed these costs onto consumers, driving up power bills.

    Why wouldn’t retailers pass on the increase in wholesale prices??

    We have all these businesses and existing regulators trying to do the right thing and save the planet under all the government initiatives and then ACCC finds prices are high and gives silly reasons and silly recommendations. There are two sane recommendations:
    1. Eliminate the RET as of now.
    2. Only allow dispatchable generation to connect to the NEM network.


    • #
      Graeme No.3


      Actually getting rid of the RET subsidies would be enough if coupled with the requirement that the supply offer be at a fixed price. Coal fired is still cheaper and, as even Finkel points out, will still be cheaper in 2030, or about the time current wind turbines are breaking down. In the meantime they will only be able to supply when the wholesale price is above $100** or they will go broke.
      The Retailers won’t have to add the cost of the certificates to the bill, and their usual markup.

      ** I am sure the big 3 will try to make that happen but with the ACCC watching it might be more difficult.


  • #

    Here’s a turn-up. The bloke who does the urban vegetable garden on top of Paris’ posh Galeries Lafayette department store has said that one reason it’s a great idea is that the UHI of big cities makes for a warmer and longer growing season.

    I wonder how he’d go with a garden backed up against the Cahill Expressway. Never mind. By now he’s probably been told there are things one doesn’t mention. A bit like the present cold waves in India, South Africa and South America. One mentions the present heatwaves in other parts, one leaves all cold waves out of the conversation, much as one avoids Yemen as a topic right now.

    Snow around Cape Town? Manners please!


  • #

    once again, despite this:

    Consumers more annoyed with their energy company than their banks and mobile providers
    ABC – 15 Jun 2018

    ABC’s RN Breakfast program does not give the ACC report a segment of its own.

    instead, after some serious Trump bashing from ABC’s Hamish Macdonald and Peter Van Onselen, the final minute of the following segment superficially touches on the ACC report, with no mention of baseload recommendations of any kind, much less coal, and Van Onselen feigning concern about “interventionist” suggestions, without saying what they are:

    begins 3mins25secs in:

    AUDIO: 4mins35secs: 11 Apr: ABC Breakfast: Politics with Peter Van Onselen
    Contributing Editor with The Australian and ***Professor of Politics at the University of Western Australia Peter Van Onselen joins RN Breakfast to discuss the latest developments in federal politics.

    ***explains a lot!


  • #

    9 Jul: SMH: Peter Hannam: ‘Unprecedented’: Solar panel installations soar, on track to triple 2017 record
    In the January-June half, rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panel installations reached 701.9 megawatts, up 48.1 per cent from the same time a year earlier, according to Green Energy Markets, a consultancy…
    The ACT posted the fastest growth, with installations up 130 per cent…
    CHART: Rooftop figures by state compared to same time last year…

    Household systems now average about 5 kilowatts per system as families try to cut their exposure to higher electricity prices.
    Falling unit prices, driven by a huge expansion of capacity in China, have been another factor in stoking demand even as states such as NSW lower the feed-in tariff paid for exporting surplus power to the grid.

    Commercial boom
    The long-predicted jump in commercial-sized systems – those of more than 15 kW – is finally happening. Such demand accounted for a quarter of June’s PV demand, according to Ric Brazzale, chairman of Green Energy Markets…

    However, when emerging demand for power stations of 100 kW or larger capacity is included, the full size of the market is likely to be much larger by the end of this year.
    So far 639 MW of such systems have been accredited this year and Green Energy Markets predicts another 1400 MW will be completed or accredited by December.
    All up, total solar installations could approach 4000 MW or close to triple the previous record set in 2017.
    “It’s sort of unprecedented,” Mr Brazzale said…

    Rapid payback
    Helena Li, president of the Asia Pacific sales division of Trina Solar – one of China’s big three module producers – said commercial users can better match energy generation with their own demands than households.
    “It’s a three-to-four years’ payback now for commercial [users],” Ms Li said. “It makes more sense, especially with electricity [prices] rising.”…

    Solar panel prices are now about 50 cents per kilowatt of capacity, a figure that could shrink to “something below 40 cents”, Mr Brazzale said.
    Restrictions imposed last month in China – easily the world’s biggest market – will be one factor, as surplus supplies get exported to countries such as Australia…

    As good as it gets?
    Falling wholesale power prices should start to result in lower retail costs, while the rollback of feed-in tariffs – including in NSW this month – will also dim some of the allure.
    “This year may be as good as it gets,” Mr Brazzale said.
    Trina Solar, though, is more optimistic. Falling battery costs should give storage “a very competitive price” for many solar PV owners, including households, by 2019 or 2020, according to Yin Rongfang, the company’s president of global sales

    China’s happy:

    10 Jul: Xinhua: Australian solar panel installations expected to triple previous annual record
    CANBERRA: Rooftop solar panel installations in Australia soared almost 50 percent in the first half of 2018, a report revealed on Monday night.
    The uptake has been so profound that Australia is expected to reach its Renewable Energy Target (RET) as much as two years earlier than the 2020 deadline set by the government…
    “If we continue on at the same rate of installations, we will end the year at between 1450 MW to 1500 MW — this will be more than 30 percent higher than the 1100 MW installed last year,” Ric Brazzale, chairman of Green Energy Markets, told Fairfax Media on Tuesday.

    The total solar installations in 2018 is expected to surpass 4000 MW or close to triple the previous single-year record of 1336 MW set in 2017.
    Green Energy’s conservative estimate of 3880 MW added in 2018 would represent a 4000 percent increase from the 85 MW installed nationally in 2009


    • #

      Falling wholesale power prices should start to result in lower retail costs.

      So then, let me see if I’ve got this right.

      The massive, humungous, astonishingly big increase in commercial solar plants will ….. lower the wholesale cost of electricity.

      How can something (commercial solar plant power) which only delivers ….. 0.4% of the total power generation force wholesale power prices lower?



      • #

        Maybe by way of a mechanism similar to the one that allows 0.04% of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere to cause catastrophic global warming? The Solarpanelhouse Effect.


    • #

      Meanwhile the future is now here:

      So when are we going to switch track and play catch-up with the rest of the world?


      • #

        Not allowed to…our communist infested govt is hell bent on breaking this country….

        Communism’s main target is the middle class – cripple it by whatever means possible to everyone is equally miserable….


        • #

          Then how come voters keep giving majority rule to them or the other party, which is even worse?


          • #

            All main parties seem to be signed up to the same Cause-du-Jour

            This is how the Elite plays the game….you get their agenda jammed down your throat so you have to choke on it.

            The Donald however, seems to have other ideas….thankfully….our hope is he will survive, literally. Kennedy was allegedly taken out as he wouldn’t play by the elites rules.


            • #

              The Deep State (ie, bureaucracy) are out to get rid of him. One has to be living on another planet not to notice. If they are successful things will be back to the old agenda in the US and the rest will be history. Even if they are not Trump can’t be President forever. I’m afraid that’s how the cookie crumbles.


      • #

        I now have a gennie…FYI…


  • #

    10 Jul: RenewEconomy: Taste of the future: Australia’s southern states at 50% renewables
    By Giles Parkinson
    Here’s a taste of the future: Last week, over the three southern states of Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia, the share of renewable energy was above 50 per cent for ***most of the time.
    Prices were low, observes Hugh Saddler, the leading energy analyst from The Australia Institute, who provided these graphs. And in South Australia, where there was a very high share of wind energy, only four gas units operated on days such as Thursday and Friday…

    ***Sadly, such low prices don’t last. As we saw on Monday, when the wind and solar back off, and the fossil fuel generators can create an artificial network constraint, they then have the market power to bid prices to the market cap in order to extract maximum value from the market.


    • #

      Sadly, such low prices don’t last. As we saw on Monday, when the wind and solar back off, and the fossil fuel generators can create an artificial network constraint, they then have the market power to bid prices to the market cap in order to extract maximum value from the market.

      An artificial market constraint????? WTF

      When you have an actual consumption figure of an average 24000MW per hour for the 24 hours of Monday, with a peak at 5.30/6PM of 29550MW, what’s artificial about that?

      If that power is being consumed, it HAS to be generated. You can’t just ‘artificially’ constrain that. It has to come from somewhere, and coal fired power delivered 75% of every watt of power being consumed, an average of 18000MW across the day.

      Incidentally, at that peak power time, wind power, solar power, and rooftop solar power COMBINED delivered 300MW of that 29550MW or ….. ONE PERCENT of that power.

      Go on, constrain coal fired power then.

      Then see what happens.



      • #

        The constraint was an AEMO financial exposure not a capacity constraint on the SA-Vic link. This is probably a way for the gas generators in SA to get a return by ensuring the financial trigger is reached.

        The word “artificial” is not a word used by AEMO. It is the author’s description of the market rule that enables dispatchable generation to make a financial return. It is artificial in the sense that wind power is wonderful and coal power should be discouraged (who needs dispatchable generation when you have wind and solar!)

        09 JUL 2018 10:05
        NEGRES CONSTRAINT NRM_SA1_VIC1 started operating from 09 July 2018 10:05

        Issued by Australian Energy Market Operator Ltd at 1005 hrs on 9 July 2018


        Electricity Market outcomes have resulted in the accumulation of negative settlement residues that have exceeded the allowable negative residue threshold for the SA to VIC directional interconnector.

        The negative residue constraint set NRM_SA1_VIC1 commenced operating from 1005 hrs on 9 July 2018.

        This constraint set contains an equation with the following interconnectors on the LHS:

        The RHS of the constraint equation may be adjusted to manage residues.

        This is an AEMO autogenerated Market Notice.


      • #

        Tony, if possible would really appreciate a running average of the total contribution of wind and solar. This is really good data to put into the comments section of The Australian online paper, where it receives a wider coverage.


    • #
      Graeme No.3


      Did Hugh Saddler happen to mention what the cost of renewables was if you added on the amount they got from the RET subsidy?


  • #

    ……..according to Ric Brazzale, chairman of Green Energy Markets…

    “It’s sort of unprecedented,” Mr Brazzale said…

    Solar panel prices are now about 50 cents per kilowatt of capacity, a figure that could shrink to “something below 40 cents”, Mr Brazzale said.…

    Well, i have heard a few “porkies” about solar prices, but this one is just the best !
    “”Panel prices are now about 50 cents per kilowatt of capacity”…..
    So a 5 kw typical system has $2.50 worth of panels ? !!……. I will have 10 then tankyou.
    Its probably a good indication of these peoples understanding of the technology
    And how many reporters /editors etc did that pass through ?


  • #

    10 Jul Updated 11 Jul: AFR: Renewables break records in electricity supply ahead of huge growth
    by Angela Macdonald-Smith
    Wind and solar power supplied a record 25.2 per cent of Australia’s electricity requirements ***on June 15 and are driving down carbon emissions from power generation rapidly toward the target needed to meet the country’s Paris accord commitments.
    The findings from advisory firm EnergyEdge have further underlined the potential for the energy system to contribute to emissions reductions well beyond current national targets and added weight to calls for those goals to be made more ambitious.

    EnergyEdge managing director Josh Stabler said that June 15 also broke the record for the maximum supply during the day from renewables, at 34.8 per cent, and for the lowest carbon-intensity of generation on any day.
    The shutdown in March last year of Engie’s large Hazelwood coal generator in the Latrobe Valley was a major contributor to the milestones, Mr Stabler said.

    The analysis came as fresh forecasts from Bloomberg New Energy Finance point to further huge renewables growth in Australia out to 2050 that has the effect of making existing coal-fired generation increasingly uneconomic as well as ruling out investments to extend the life of existing coal plants.
    The BNEF analysis anticipates some ***$US144 billion of investment will be made in Australia’s generation system by 2050, of which a massive 84 per cent will be in renewables…

    The Australian mix will completely reorientate,” said Leonard Quong, a lead BNEF analyst in Australia, noting that under current legislated regulations, the share of renewables will grow to about 66 per cent of operating megawatts by 2050, while the share of coal and gas shrinks to 17 per cent.

    The amount of megawatts installed almost triples by 2050, according to the BNEF analysis, with only a small part of that due to demand growth and the rest due to the lower utilisation rate of renewables plants that requires much more capacity to be built than will be effectively used at any time.
    Mr Quong said that “almost no new capital” would go into coal even to extend existing plants, both because of the reluctance of investors to invest in that fuel, but also because coal generators don’t have the flexibility needed to fit alongside renewables which will increasingly dominate the daytime generation mix.

    “We think that renewables are already cheaper than refurbishing these assets for 15 years,” he told a briefing in Sydney, while noting that new wind and solar would supplant existing coal generators…
    BNEF estimates renewables will account for 45 per cent of generation in 2030 and over 94 per cent in 2050, with gas still holding on to a small share…READ ON

    ***$US144 billion? down from $186 billion last month?

    19 Jun: SMH: Renewables to account for 90pc of Australian power by 2050: report
    by Cole Latimer, With Peter Hannam
    A new report forecasts renewable generation will account for more than 90 per cent of Australian power by 2050 as nearly all of the nation’s coal-fired power stations close in the next 30 years, and costs for new build renewables fall compared to coal.
    The annual Bloomberg New Energy Finance energy outlook forecasts renewable power investment in Australia will reach more than $US138 billion (***$186 billion) by 2050 as the rate of new wind and solar entering the market increases to account for 92 per cent of all generation…

    Globally, about $US11.5 trillion is being invested in new generation capacity from 2018 to 2050, with about $US8.4 trillion of this invested in wind and solar. About $US1.5 trillion will be invested in other zero-carbon technologies such as hydro and nuclear power…

    BNEF said the levelised cost of electricity for existing coal operations to be refurbished will be about $US57 a megawatt-hour while new low-cost solar can be built for $US48 per MWh and low-cost wind for $US44 per MWh.
    By 2050 the costs of new low-cost solar and wind will fall to $US20 per MWh to $US21 per MWh, while the cost of refurbishing coal will remain around $US56 per MWh…
    “The future grid will be underpinned by cheap wind and solar, with batteries and pumped hydro helping to smooth out the variability, and with gas acting as a fail-safe,” the Australian head of BNEF, Kobad Bhanvagri said.

    Coal power in Australia will fall from around 25 gigawatts in 2017 to 23 gigawatts by 2025, and then only 6 gigawatts by 2040. This will fall to 0.4 gigawatts by 2050…

    “New coal will not be able to compete with increasingly cheap electricity from wind and solar, balanced with battery storage and other flexible technologies like hydro and gas. As existing coal generators reach the end of life, they will not be life-extended or replaced,” BNEF senior associate Leonard Quong said.

    New research from the ***University of NSW has forecast Australia could even move to 100 per cent renewable generation if the right policy structures are in place.
    “The principal barriers to 100 per cent renewable electricity are no longer technological or economic, instead they result from inappropriate institutional structures serving the old smokestack technologies, and the influence of incumbent industries,” UNSW associate professor Dr Mark Diesendorf said.

    LinkedIn: Leonard Quong, Sunpanel and Windmill Analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance
    NSW, Australia
    ***Education: UNSW, BS, Photovoltaics and Solar Energy, 74.923 WAM
    2009 – 2012


  • #
    David Maddison

    The 2017 annual report for the Hepburn Wind Cooperative is out. It is a two windmill subsidy farm and here are the relevant financials. Someone might want to look into this more deeply but they make more money selling certificates than they do producing electricity.

    Electricity sales $617,900
    Renewable Energy Certificates sales $625,015
    Movement in LGC’s on hand (what are these exactly) $132,793

    Market value
    Electricity generated per MWh $59.67
    Certificates created $85.46


    • #

      There is a market in LGCs. They have 2028 LGCs either registered or pending audit. These would have been valued at $173k if they used the $85.46 price. They must have ha considerably fewer unsurrendered at the end of the last accounting period because the value of LGCs on hand has increased by $132k.

      The LGCs are registered, validated and then they are surrendered at the time a retailer pays for them. The current price is $74. The 2020 offer price is down to $45.

      I expect there will be a good deal ofLGC market fiddling to prevent flooding the market. This in another area where ambient generators can extract value by withholding certificates from the retail buyers who need them.

      I expect that investing in the Australian electricity grid will become increasingly problematic for financiers because it is so fluid. There is mounting sovereign risk because the ambients have been overhyped and cannot deliver what is promised.


    • #

      Some things to note: I thought wind was free, but their operating costs of $518,000 just about match their income from electricity sales of $618,000. So their profit of $634,000 after tax comes almost exclusively from their sale of LGCs at $625,000. Another oddity, profit before tax was $400,000 so not only did they not pay any tax, they got a $235,000 tax credit. (is that another subsidy?)


  • #

    10 Jul: CNBC: US withdrawal from Paris agreement may set back financing climate change: Former UN chief Ban Ki-moon
    •Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said he was concerned about mobilizing the necessary financial support to address climate change issues with U.S. withdrawal from the Paris agreement.
    •Ban told CNBC’s Oriel Morrison that there may be a need for $4 trillion annually to cover all 17 sustainable development goals to be reached by 2030, according to OECD projections.
    by Harini V; Reuters contributed to this report.
    Speaking to CNBC at the Singapore International Water Week on Tuesday, he said: “Now with the United States pulling from this Paris agreement, I’m concerned now how to mobilize the necessary financial support for many developing countries who do not have the capacity to address this climate change issues. They do not have any responsibilities historically speaking. Therefore it is absolute necessary that the international community uses its political will to work on this matter.”
    He added, “I sincerely hope that the U.S. will come back as it realizes it has a global moral political responsibility … U.S. is the only country now who is stepping back from this global agreement.”…

    Ban told CNBC’s Oriel Morrison that there may be a need for $4 trillion annually to cover all 17 sustainable development goals to be reached by 2030, according to OECD projections.
    He said, “It is not the amount of money that is at stake. If there is a political commitment by the important industrialized countries including European Union and also of course United States, then we can mobilize this money.”


  • #

    Wow. It’s 8.5°C in my study ATM, (Where’s that heater hiding?) and 9°C outside (maybe) according to the “official” thermometers somewhere out there. Big Yella is this side of the horizon and has gained some altitude. That temperature is nothing out of the ordinary for this time of July.

    That was when I started this. It’s now 13°C out there, heading for the day’s predicted maximum of 15°C. The Southerly is not here, yet, it’s busy cooling Adelaide and the air we’re getting, according to is being pre-heated for us by north-western Victoria, and southwestern NSW. Thanks for that courtesy.

    According to that paragon of Fake News, The Grauniad Guardian, there is ” A Global Heat Wave” with the recovered Poly-Bears once again endangered from melting Arctic ice, which has not melted much at all yet, except over by Northern Siberia, where it’s melted like that last year and the year before and … well, every year except once recently. You’ll note that “Global” is an extreme exaggeration, way more extreme than the weather they’re exaggerating—they left out the penguins! If the heatwave isn’t endangering the penguins, too, then it can’t be global!


    I ran a very non-systematic check of Arctic Average Temperatures… which was systematic enough to satisfy me that nothing was untoward … and compared this year [2018] with the other ’8′ years from 1958 from the `Arkiv.’ Of course the Grauniad’s editorial is just poorly founded opinion. (That’s how this whole scam started: with poorly founded opinion. The IPCC was created by the FCCC to prove the FCCC’s opinion. Unfortunately, because the IPCC hasn’t succeeded … still or yet after 28 years … we’re stuck with it.)

    Only 1998 was a little different: meeting the high point of the average temp early and hanging on slightly later. Other than that, there was basically nothing to see. Yep: nothing to see. No surprised polar bears, just the usual surprised seals. (Well, a bear has to eat, too.)

    Then I found the wxclimonews website which was painting lots of the northern hemisphere bright Red from North East Canada, to Alaska, (travel east!) including Scandinavia as heatwave sufferers. Hang on half a minim, all this Red paint was for later this week and next week. That is: it hadn’t happened. Yet.

    So I looked for Scandinavian temperature charts. Hmm, temps around southern Norway and across the border in Sweden were in the mid to high twenties (degrees C) but not a twenty-nine or higher to be found. Northern Finland peaked at 26°C near the Russian border but low 20′s were all around with mid to high teens in the rest of the country. Yes, I realised that it was dark there so these temps were their “yesterday’s high temps.”

    So where was this heatwave? You will note that I didn’t bother to check the South Pole for this wayward warming. The temps down there are well below -30°C at this time of the year (circa -50°C ) so nobody would have been more surprised than I if this “Global” idiocy had reached there. It seems that “summer = heatwave” and mid-summer = “Heatwave” in the Guardian’s view of the world. Hold yer hats everybody, it’s not Late Summer yet: that must = “HEATWAVE” in the Grauniad’s lexicon!

    No, no, I know where it is: it’s at Wimbledon because it hasn’t hailed all over the crowds there, maybe, yet.

    Oh, riiiiiight: it’s hiding in Eastern Siberia. No, it’s now in Northern Siberia. No, it’s not there, it’s predicted, end of this week and next week, again.

    Only one word describes the origins of this “Global Heatwave:” Collected Idiots. It’s Summer and they’re all going silly. Of course it’s warm in Summer and warmer/hot by mid-summer. It will be late Summer soon and then we’ll see some Stupendous Idiocy. (That’s a “projection.”) :-)


  • #

    I wonder how the Greenies will handle this? Just ignore it as they usually do with info that contradicts their religion, probably.


  • #

    Berlin buyers exhaust EV cargo bike funding in just one day

    In Berlin, a flood of applications have exhausted an e-bike purchase incentive fund after just one day.

    Without a requirement to supply an invoice for the application, it is no wonder – the support program effectively gave buyers a 33% discount off the price of the vehicle, with a limit of €1,000 for each purchaser.

    Instead of supplying an invoice of purchase, applicants only had to provide two quotes – and at that, proof could consist of a mere screenshot of the cargo bike they intended to buy.


  • #
  • #

    Some quick takeaways from the ACCC report on electricity prices: “Restoring electricity affordability and Australia’s competitive advantage”. Now that’s what I’d like to see!!
    Premium solar feed-in-tariff schemes should be funded by state governments and the small scale renewable energy scheme should be phased out.
    Solar customers are paying, on average, $538 per year less than non-solar customers, suggesting that affordability concerns are most acute for those customers who have not (and possibly cannot) install solar PV.
    Government support to make bankable new investment by new players in generation capacity to help commercial and industrial customers and drive competition.
    Restructuring of Queensland generators into three separately owned portfolios to improve competition.
    One of the most important recommendations is to move customers off excessively high ‘standing’ offers to a new standard ‘default’ offer to be independently set by the Australian Energy Regulator.
    The Australian Government should operate a program under which it will enter into low fixed price (for example, $45–$50/MWh) energy offtake agreements for the later years (say 6–15) of appropriate new generation projects which meet certain criteria.
    The ACCC is recommending that the governments of Queensland, NSW and Tasmania should take immediate steps to remedy the over-investment of their network businesses in order to improve affordability for consumers.
    At a time when gas-powered generation has become more important with the exit of large coal-fired plants, the extent of LNG exports from the East Coast and government moratoria on on-shore gas exploration and development have stifled the availability of gas at a low price.
    The tightening of supply and demand, brought about mainly by the exit of large coal-fired generators, has seen a general ‘lift’ in wholesale prices across the NEM in recent years. The ACCC has undertaken detailed work to examine whether this lift is as a result of market power concerns, including bidding behaviour by particular generators. The ACCC has found that elevated prices have generally been driven by high and entrenched levels of concentration in the market, combined with fuel source cost factors, rather than identifiable uses or abuses of market power.
    Wholesale spot and futures prices are around 30 per cent lower than their 2017 peak (Can’t see the reasoning in the summary).
    What’s missing?
    Impact of RET.
    How the 56 recommendations will restore Australia’s competitive advantage.


  • #

    Has anyone else noticed BOM ignoring weather data? My local weather has not been recording mins or rainfall now for well over a month. I’m waiting for calls for drought assistance as we’ve had no RECORDED rainfall.


    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Don’t worry Sean. Not a problem.

      They’ll make it up later – when they’ve decided what it should’ve been.


    • #

      I think its pretty clear that weather services all over the world are now in the reverse engineering business, rather than the observations business.


  • #

    Some more quick takeaways from the ACCC’s Full Report on Electricity Prices: “Restoring electricity affordability and Australia’s competitive advantage”.
    Average residential bill $1636, excl GST. Made up of wholesale costs 34%, network 43%, environment 6%, retail costs 8%, retail margin 8%.
    Australian electricity prices, gross margins and net margins are among the highest in the world.
    Competition in the wholesale (generation) and retail parts of the supply chain is not working as well as it could, and this has affected electricity affordability.
    AGL, Origin and EnergyAustralia have expanded their combined market share of generation capacity (either through ownership or control of plant output) from 17 per cent in 2011 to around 45 per cent in 2018.
    A key driver of investment in renewable generation has been the LRET.33 Under that scheme, new renewable generation has not had to rely on market prices alone to underpin investment, but instead could rely on the separate revenue stream available through the sale of Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs).
    Although the LRET was introduced in its current form in 2009, the level of renewable generation investment has only markedly picked up recently. This followed changes to the LRET in 2015 that received bipartisan support, providing certainty that the scheme was likely to continue until 2030. The spot prices for LGCs have traded sharply higher since 2015, currently trading at over $80 (compared to under $50 until 2015).
    Recent modelling for the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) and the Energy Security Board (ESB) presents a different picture of wholesale prices over the next few years. Modelling by Frontier Economics for the AEMC’s 2017 Residential Electricity Price Trends Report forecast spot prices in Queensland, NSW and Victoria to fall below $60/MWh by 2020.36 South Australian prices were forecast to fall to around $65/MWh. The ESB stated that the steep decline from current prices reflects the high volume of committed renewable capacity that will come online over the next few years. However, the levelised (long run) costs of renewable plant are still currently higher than much of the installed thermal plant.
    The exit of the Hazelwood power station in March 2017 resulted in a large withdrawal of low-cost supply, which was replaced by output from more expensive existing generation (such as black coal, gas and hydro). The closure was especially significant given Hazelwood’s size, supplying around 5 per cent of total output across the NEM.
    The larger role of more expensive sources of generation means they are more often the marginal generator and setting wholesale prices. Brown coal generators now rarely set the price in any region because even at full dispatch, there is insufficient brown coal capacity to meet demand at most times of the day.
    Analysis of Queensland black coal generators, principally Stanwell Corporation, shows a stark difference before and after the Queensland Government directed Stanwell Corporation to place downward pressure on wholesale prices from mid-2017.


    • #

      So, perhaps an inquiry might be perspicacious in one way.

      What it will show is that system really is being ‘gamed’.

      Only, it’s being gamed by wind and solar generators. They already have their own dedicated income stream from the sale of their LGC’s no matter what they generate, so the wholesale cost of electricity is just ‘the cream’ for them.

      So, when wind power is high, they get more from their LGC’s and can then ‘get by’ with a lower price from the actual sale of their generated power to the grid.

      Now, as the grid is ‘forced’ to purchase wind power first, wind generators can lower the cost, which then acts as the new base price for electricity that ALL generators get paid.

      The cost rises naturally, as new generators come onto the grid to deliver more power as required during the day, so wind power will naturally get that raised cost anyway, as all generators get paid the same amount.

      When there is no wind, they get their income stream from their LGC’s anyway, and because the source which augments wind power is natural gas fired power, the most expensive of all sources, then for what small power they are delivering, wind gets that much higher price for their electricity.

      So, it’s a Win – Win for wind, high or low.

      I wonder what will happen to greens senators heads if something like that were to be said at any inquiry. (be careful what you wish for)



      • #

        Tony, a minor correction. Wind and solar get issued with LGCs based on their MWhr generation, currently at $80/MWhr in addition to the wholesale price of around $90/MWhr in SA. But if they don’t operate, they get nothing.


    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Bizarre that they can say that Brown Coal is cheaper option than black coal.

      Black coal is obviously ” badder ” than Brown Coal because it is blacker and black always means bad.

      From an engineering point of view when all processing is considered I would have picked Black as the obvious cheaper option. Anybody know for sure?

      If we have government employees who can’t see and talk straight, maybe it’s time for a new team.
      Perhaps, for greater savings, the clean out of the ABC could be done at the same time.

      The bureaucracy has obviously been instructed to provide a cloud of confusing misinformation that provides a cover for the skimming that occurs with our electricity accounts.

      There is something seriously wrong here: public servants working against the best interests of taxpayers and businesses that are entitled to the provision of cheap, reliable electricity.

      If labor was in power tomorrow, this would still not change.

      We, as a disenfranchised group, don’t have too many options left.



    • #

      the ACCC is recommending that the SRES (SRES small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme) should be wound down and abolished by 2021 to reduce its impact on retail prices paid by consumers (recommendation 24).


  • #

    A weather report from the Victorian Central Highlands:
    The lowest recorded maximum temperature in Ballarat Victoria (1957 – 2018) was 3.2C on 31 May 1977.
    The lowest recorded maximum temperature in Ballarat for July (1957 – 2018) was 4.4C on 30 July 1994.
    The highest temperature in Ballarat so far today (11 July) was 4.9C at 12am and the current temperature at 1:30pm is 3.5C.


    • #

      I was out in that from 8:30 am to 2:30 pm, my left hand froze and I struggled to hold mail, my little finger also sticks straight out useless when its this cold from an old injury I think, we got some sleet in the outer areas and I can vouch for it, its actually better if it snows compared to this pizzle.


    • #
      Rob Leviston

      We only got to a maximum of 4.0C between 1600-1630, so I guess that is a new ‘low’ for Ballarat!


  • #

    another “green” fiasco:

    10 Jul: BusinessInsider: Chris Pash: Australia’s bike sharing industry is near collapse as 3 major companies shut
    Three bike sharing businesses — oBike, ReddyGo and Ofo — have gone from Australia.
    Their departure has called into question a business model more based on data collection than fees.
    The scramble to establish a viable bike sharing business has all but ended in Australia, leaving behind broken and abandoned frames and a business model that didn’t work.
    Most bike sharing businesses in Australia have withdrawn from the market over the past week, including oBike, ReddyGo and Ofo.

    They came up against local residents and councils in capital cities who didn’t like that the bikes ended up in the local river, or up a tree, or mangled in a back street, or as part of an impromptu art installation…
    oBike pulled out of Melbourne and on Friday its parent company in Singapore went into liquidation.
    Reddy Go, the Australian bike share company, told its members it is restructuring, offering two free bikes to those who didn’t want to take part in the yet to be announced new business.
    And Ofo, a business founded in China, today announced the end of Australian operations…

    Kim Do, a Senior Industry Analyst for IBISWorld: “As Australian government authorities began to crack down on dumping, imposing fines of up to $3000, Australia was no longer a viable market for these players,” she says.
    The bike sharing business model, of obtaining revenue through data mining, advertising and interest on deposits, rather than the fee charges per ride, is an additional issue.
    “A substantial amount of revenue for bike sharing companies stems from selling consumer data to other businesses,” she says.
    “This includes details such as rider profiles and locations frequented. This data is then used by other organisations to assist with urban planning, marketing campaigns, or to assist with identifying locations with high consumer traffic…

    ABC loved the idea:

    10 Jul: ABC: Nadia Daly: Bike-sharing company ofo cycles out of Australia, others remain in doubt
    Several companies have faced a backlash from local residents and councils in several capital cities…
    The bright yellow and red bikes of dockless bike hire companies have been seen around the streets of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide since they began operations in Australia about a year ago.
    The schemes were controversial as many of the bikes were left abandoned on footpaths, up trees and dumped in waterways.
    One Sydney council impounded dozens of them…
    oBike has already pulled out of Melbourne and its future in Australia is uncertain after its parent company in Singapore went into liquidation.
    Now ofo has announced it is leaving Australia — and several other countries — to “focus on priority markets internationally”…

    Some oBike users in Australia are said to have been struggling to recover their deposits, which are paid when signing up for the bike-sharing service via the app…
    Mayor of Waverley John Wakefield said he was disappointed the business model seemed to have failed.
    “I would have hoped that at least one bike company would have survived,” he said.
    “I would like to see alternative modes of transport be available.”…
    He said inner-city councils have always argued a docked bike system would work.
    “A study shows it would cost $25 million to set it up but it wouldn’t return much money,” he said.

    “[So] I think if we are going to see share bikes in the future it will need to be a cooperative venture of ***Government and private sector.”…

    more to come.


  • #

    6 Jul: ABC: Nadia Daly: Bike-sharing company oBike’s Australian future uncertain after overseas liquidation
    Despite the company’s troubles in Australia and Singapore, oBike has just expanded in ***Europe — recently starting operations in the Italian cities of Florence and Milan…


    29 Jun: Deutsche Welle: Dockless bike-sharing faces uphill battle in Berlin and Europe
    Awash with cash, Asian providers are fighting for market share in Europe with large fleets of free-floating bicycles. In this price battle for supremacy, is monetizing data the only way to profitability?
    by Benjamin Bathke
    From annoying — and costly — technical errors to vandalism, theft and regulation: Dockless bike-sharing in Europe has been plagued with problems so far…

    Some 16,000 bikes from no fewer than seven different providers populate Berlin’s sidewalks: the four dockless contenders Mobike and Ofo (China), Obike (Singapore), LimeBike (US) and Donkey Republic (Denmark), as well as incumbents Nextbike (dock-based) and Lidl-Bike (dockless).
    Tapping into the ‘sharing economy’ ethic behind Airbnb and ride-hailing apps such as Uber, bicycle-sharing has grown rapidly in recent years, thanks in large part to hundreds of millions of dollars from investors that allowed companies like Mobike and Ofo to wage a costly war of subsidies for market share, both in China and overseas…

    ***PHOTO GALLERY – 6 PICS: China’s bike sharing graveyards
    Bicycle fields
    Chinese police have an extra job to add to their workload: collecting unwanted bicycles from parks and pavements, and leaving them in fields outside city centers. The growth of bike sharing has left unintended consequences for local governments.

    ***In Europe, where the companies have rolled out in cities including London, Paris, Brussels, Manchester and Madrid, city dwellers have been much less welcoming to Asian bike-sharing companies than in China. Singapore-based oBike, for instance, recently pulled out of Zurich after a year of grappling with vandalism and low uptake…
    For some time in late 2017, posting destroyed oBikes even became a trend on Instagram (LINK)…


  • #

    for Fairfax, it’s just a “bump in the road”:

    10 Jul: SMH: Bump in the road as bike share operators Reddy Go, ofo quit Sydney
    By Megan Gorrey
    City of Sydney councillor Jess Scully said changes among the city’s four main share bike operators – Reddy Go, oBike, Mobike and ofo – were “maybe the end of phase one but the model is here to stay”.
    “We have seen a significant contraction in the number of bike share operators in Sydney, but that’s not to say the business model is dead,” she said…

    Reddy Go sent a text message to members last week which read: “Due to regulatory factors, we are currently restructuring our business model…
    University of Technology graduate Donald Tang launched the start-up with 160 bikes for hire last July.

    In a statement Ofo (said?) it had “made a strategic decision to focus on priority markets internationally” and would wind down operations in Sydney and Adelaide in the next 60 days…

    Mobike Australia general manager Mina Nada, who launched the operator in Sydney last November, said the share bike industry still had “huge potential” in Sydney.
    “People have really taken to using the bikes to get around the city and in particular with commuters getting to and from work.”

    Clr Scully said dockless bike share had been “phenomenal in terms of increasing the number of people cycling”, accounting for 6600 trips in Sydney each day with 140,000 registered users….
    She said dockless bikes were positive as they cut traffic congestion and provided more transport options but admitted “there were certain teething issues with the introduction of these services”.
    A “state-based approach” to regulating the industry made sense given bike users often travelled between local government areas, she said…

    Sun Sheng Han, professor of urban planning at Melbourne University, said the future of shared bikes in Australia was uncertain.
    But he said the companies’ exits could be viewed as “a retreat in the broader picture” and a reflection of their rapid expansion and venture capital-driven business model.

    Professor Han said some schemes could survive due to a desired cultural shift away from car travel towards public and active transport.
    “On the other hand, changes in infrastructure, regulations and civic culture need time, probably a long time, which provides opportunities for more experiments, debates and policy innovations.”


  • #

    10 JUL: NorwichEveningNewsUK: Bike-sharing Ofo to leave Norwich

    10 Jul: MoneyControl: Chinese bicycle-sharing startup Ofo fires staff, halts operations in India
    The company had launched its operation in the India in November 2017 and had since expanded to Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Coimbatore, Delhi Indore and Pune…
    Ofo had received an investment of $866 million in the highest funding record the bike-sharing industry has seen. Alibaba Group, Haofeng Group, Tianhe Capital, Ant Financial and Junli Capital had participated in the round…

    10 Jul: VCCircle: Vijayakumar Pitchiar: Bicycle-sharing startup Ofo to ride out of India after just 7 months
    Media reports in China say Ofo has been facing a cash crunch in recent months and plans to lay off around half of its staff at its headquarters…
    The move to quit India comes two months after Mobike, Ofo’s biggest rival in its home market of China, said it would launch services here.
    Mobike was acquired by Chinese food-to-flight services major Meituan Dianping for an estimated $2.7 billion in April this year. The company’s backers include Tencent, Temasek and Sequoia Capital, among others…

    10 Jul: SanFranciscoChronicle: California and New York City: We’ll buy more electric cars. How about you?
    by David R. Bake
    A coalition of states, cities and businesses determined to fight climate change announced a campaign Tuesday to buy more zero-emission vehicles for their own fleets and persuade others to do the same.

    Coalition members, which include the state of California and the city of New York, also called upon automakers to develop an “endgame” for cars burning fossil fuels and commit to ensuring that a set proportion of the cars they sell in 2025 produce no emissions.
    “The auto industry knows this is a global trend and many are racing to be part of it,” said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, which runs most of the state’s climate programs, in a statement. “Companies that fail to adapt do so at their peril.”…

    By committing to buy electric or fuel-cell vehicles for their fleets, the participants hope to use their collective buying power and show automakers that there will be a market for such vehicles, which have been slow to catch on with the public. Since the current wave of electric cars first hit the market in late 2010, only 398,809 have been registered nationwide, just over half of them in California. And only 3,650 fuel-cell vehicles are registered nationwide, almost all of them in California…

    The challenge, announced in the Red Hook neighborhood of Brooklyn in advance of a “Formula E” electric-car race this weekend, comes in the lead-up to a global climate change summit that begins Sept. 12 in San Francisco…
    Last year, 30 U.S. cities announced plans to buy a total of 114,000 electric cars and trucks…
    The new initiative was organized by the Climate Group, a nonprofit that works with government agencies and businesses on climate solutions, and C40 Cities, an international network of city governments focused on global warming.


  • #

    Hi Jo

    I see the ACCC has reported on the state of the national (excluding WA?) electricity market. Basically they conclude that it is STUFFED. Not sure if we needed an inquiry to tell us that but they have given 56 recommendations to try an fix what generations of half witted politicians have produced.

    The report is not about the technology but just about the market and from what I’ve heard they seem to have put forward some reasonable reforms that might be worth doing. However after seeing Turnbull’s press conference on the subject I will bet nothing will come of it, apart from the his half baked NEG.

    The PM still bleats on about meeting “our” i.e. his emission reduction commitments. I also just saw the Queensland state treasurer speaking about it and he seems to think that we should all go out and install solar panels because they are just soooo cheap now. Sure, I can see all the people on minimum wage, low income retirees, single mums etc. all rushing out to buy a pv system for their homes to get all that “free” electricity. This bloke is supposed to be a Labour man, what an idiot! What ever happened to the Labour party I grew up with that was mostly interested in lifting people out of poverty? Gone forever me thinks.

    Governments in this country privatised the electricity generation and distribution (except WA) years ago and bungled it. They let too few players get control of too much. To make matters worse they could not allow the market to operate freely but interfered with all sorts of subsidies and tariffs designed to meet one political goal or another.

    Do we really expect the people who stuffed it to now fix it? The political mind is a very simple one, if you want to stop people smoking you increase the price of tobacco, you want to stop people getting fat you increase the price of sugar, you want to stop global warming you increase the price of electricity. As far as the political class are concerned every thing is going just fine, they seriously have no idea why people keep complaining, after all weren’t they elected by the people to do all this?


    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Governments in this country privatised the electricity generation and distribution (except WA) years ago and bungled it.’

      They did in deed. In NSW it was Baird’s idea to privatise the poles and wires, but the agrarian socialists (Nats) fought back, saying its going to cost the bush people more for electricity. The Nats already knew that they would spend the windfall from an overseas buyer to build capital city infrastructure.

      Anyway is was eventually passed through Parliament and power prices went through the roof, enough id enough.

      Here is our supreme leader trying to keep the agrarian socialists under control, sounds like Liddell is a buyback.

      “The thing we’ve got to make sure is we don’t have any more of this phenomenon we’ve seen in recent times where older baseload generation goes out because its owners think it is clapped out. We’ve got to make sure we maintain the level of dispatchability,” Malcolm Turnbull said.

      Fin Review


    • #

      I believe WA power generation is privatised, but not sure.


  • #
    Another Ian

    As a friend used to say “Seemed a good idea at the time”

    “EU President Donald Tusk Threatens U.S. President Trump: “appreciate your allies, after all you don’t have that many”…”


  • #
    Another Ian

    Trump is obviously giving the LSM plenty to gnash over while he’s in Europe

    “The White House is Reviewing EPA Proposal to Repeal Obama’s CO2 Regulations”


  • #
    Another Ian


    FYI Diagram and link

    “IMO this shows a better representation of what really goes on with our atmosphere/climate.”


    • #

      How could he just eliminate 242W/sq.m of back radiation that existed in AR5. According to IPCC it trended upward from 224W/sq,m in AR4.

      Back radiation is the Santa Claus for the adult children. It just keeps giving and makes the Earth’s surface cosier than it would be if there was no Santa Claus.


  • #

    History channel program on trains and how they changed England and the world. The first train increased the rate of coal delivery of goods from Manchester and coal to Manchester, making a great boom in production. Everywhere, not only did coal change the world, it allowed trains which changed it faster.

    At the same time pure carbon from coal, coke, enabled the making of steel, not cast iron from charcoal. (odd name?). That meant better trains and boilers and steam shovels and people did not have to dig canals and tunnels by hand. Coal saved the trees of Europe. Finland had been completely stripped.

    Coal brought us here, created our quality of life, travel for everyone, British engineering and trains opened the new world of travel and spread across the world with breathtaking speed. By 1888 the world ran on trains and trains ran on coal and England had 8,000 miles of train lines in two decades.

    Only a century later in 1988 an International Governmental Panel decided coal was killing the planet, making it uninhabitable. Also oil and gas. Total villains. We had to go back to windmills and what little power we could get from solar cells. We had to save the planet and improve the quality of life in China. Our quality of life, our profligate lifestyle was a real ecological problem. We Australians should not use our coal, gas, oil, uranium, iron ore or bauxite.

    So good people overseas used a lot more of our coal to make a lot more steel and sell us a lot of windmills. All rich countries had to buy windmills. This at a cost in the tens of trillions of dollars did absolutely nothing to bring down ruinous CO2 levels. So now in Australia, we make nothing. We pay $80,000 a year to every worker pretending to make aluminum. We closed refineries. Shut down smelters. Stopped making machinery, cars, aircraft. What coal gave, our politicians took away. For our own good, although that will never be explained.

    Now we export all our coal and gas and iron ore and uranium and bauxite which we are not allowed use ourselves because we are good people. If we get paid, we send the cash back overseas to pay for our sins. Our politicians party overseas too at huge international conferences where they discuss how bad we are and how we should send more money. Coal and gas are only sinful if we use them. Apparently. We are good people.


  • #

    Then we are so lucky to have high performing politicians like Turnbull and Freydenberg. Turnbull has no idea why Hazelwood closed but apparently it is a private matter. In sharp contrast Freydenberg is going to ‘laser in‘ on electricity prices.

    Now the news is that wholesale (not just retail) prices have never been higher in NSW and Victoria. No idea why but they will get the ACCC to sort it out. They will pass laws against the big users of electricity and force them to shut faster and pay their workers for doing nothing or face fines of up to $100Million. We can be thankful we are not socialists who would keep Liddell going at any cost.

    We are so lucky.


    • #
      el gordo

      In NSW the high cost is in the poles and wires, up 35% since privatisation, which hurts consumers in regional Australia the most.

      ‘Malcolm Turnbull has pushed back against pressure from the Nationals and some conservative Liberals to subsidise coal, arguing that backing one technology over another is a recipe for higher power prices.’



      • #

        I would have thought the wholesale price was before poles and wires and distribution?


      • #

        Turnbull is right. Backing one technology against another is a recipe for higher power prices. Coal, oil, gas, diesel, petrol, wood are all non approved and you must buy certificates to be able to use them. I would guess they are different ‘technologies’?


  • #

    not a hint from ABC re funding baseload energy of any kind:

    11 Jul: ABC: The ACCC says your energy bills are too high. Here’s how it thinks prices can be slashed
    By consumer affairs reporter Amy Bainbridge
    The watchdog says power bills can be reduced by at least 25 per cent — 25 per cent! — if governments adopt a series of recommendations from its report on the energy market.
    And the ACCC’s chairman, Rod Sims, reckons that’s a conservative saving.

    Here’s what you need to know from the Retail Electricity Pricing Inquiry report (LINK)…

    “They’ve gone up because costs have increased right across the board — the costs of the poles and wires, retailer costs, retailer behaviour in the sense of deliberately confusing offers for customers,” Mr Sims told the ABC…

    I’ve got solar panels, what does this report mean for me?
    It shows you’ve been getting a good deal.
    But things might change pretty soon, with the report recommending subsidy schemes for solar eventually be scrapped.
    The report found solar customers were paying on average $538 less per year than non-solar customers.
    That suggests affordability concerns are most acute for those customers who have not, and possibly cannot, install solar panels.
    The ACCC recommends changes to solar panel subsidy schemes.
    “If governments want to subsidise solar panels, that’s absolutely fine, but they should be doing it from their budgets,” Mr Sims said.
    “They shouldn’t be charging other energy consumers more so that those who’ve got solar panels receive a subsidy.”

    The report said households with solar energy had benefited from generous feed-in tariffs, and also received subsidies for the installation of the system itself through the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES).
    “Meanwhile, non-solar households and businesses have faced the burden of the cost of premium solar feed-in tariff schemes and the SRES,” the report said.
    The ACCC recommends that any costs remaining from premium solar feed-in schemes should be borne by state governments through their budgets, as Queensland has done, rather than being recovered through charges to electricity users.

    The report also recommends the SRES should be wound down and abolished by 2021 to reduce its impact on retail prices paid by consumers.
    That’s alarmed the Smart Energy Council, which is calling on the Government to immediately rule out abolishing the SRES in the wake of the report.
    And community-based organisation Solar Citizens said slashing the small-scale renewable energy scheme was “absolutely the wrong way to go”.
    “Energy consumers are tired of being taken for a ride by electricity retailers, which is why Australians are installing solar at record rates so that they can take the power back into their own hands,” the group’s Shani Tager said.
    “Abolishing the small-scale renewable energy scheme will just make it harder for everyone else who wants to be a part of the rooftop revolution and the Turnbull Government must rule out changes to the scheme.”

    the report appears to be 398 pages long and I can’t be bothered trying to find if it ever mentions “coal” by name and have not even found the recommendation re funding anything. ridiculous.


    • #

      “The ACCC recommends that any costs remaining from premium solar feed-in schemes should be borne by state governments through their budgets, as Queensland has done, rather than being recovered through charges to electricity users”

      In other words, if the Government really wanted to subsidise solar panels, it should have been done openly on the budget by taxation revenue, not illegally and secretly loading retail electricity bills. Theft.

      Exactly as I have been writing. This RET scheme is robbery by the government. King John is now blaming his baliffs for his outrageous theft.

      The RET is illegal. Repeal it and the insanity would be gone. Of course everyone marks up the RET. Retailers, distributors, poles and wires. Everyone makes money marking up a secret and illegal money legislated money grab. What do we get? Nothing.


  • #

    ***as I thought, coal is never mentioned, only ***“firm” generation capacity! pathetic…as is Turnbull’s response:

    11 Jul: Guardian: Turnbull pushes back on coal pressure after ACCC report
    ‘We want to be supporting lower prices,’ says PM, backing ACCC’s criticism of subsidies
    by Amy Remeikis and Paul Karp
    Malcolm Turnbull has pushed back against pressure from the Nationals and some conservative Liberals to subsidise coal, arguing that backing one technology over another is a recipe for higher power prices.

    Campaigning in Queensland after a new report from Australia’s Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) suggested Australia’s electricity market was broken, Turnbull said he was focused on the task of lowering energy prices for consumers.
    “I recognise that there’s often debates about how you get there, and interesting debates about technologies, but the object of policy is to get prices low,” the prime minister told the Queensland Media Club.
    “And the one thing we know is that government subsidising one technology or another, as [ACCC chairman] Rod Sims said today, is only going to result in higher prices.
    “We want to be supporting lower prices. So that’s what it is all about.”

    Nationals have seized on one recommendation from the new ACCC report – that federal government underwrite new ***“firm” generation capacity to support new market entrants, and promote more competition – to claim that is a pathway to bankroll new coal development, which struggles to get finance.
    Resources minister and Queensland National Matt Canavan, an avowed supporter of coal, took to social media to declare the “common sense of the Nationals is vindicated”.

    In a joint media release on Wednesday afternoon, Nationals leader Michael McCormack and deputy leader Bridget McKenzie said the government’s approach would mean “coal can be part of the energy mix and Australians whose jobs, businesses and communities rely on it can have confidence”.
    Turnbull gave the ACCC recommendation tacit backing, noting the ACCC had made “a very interesting suggestion”.
    But he also rebuffed the overt shirt-fronting from the Nationals, saying it was clear the recommendation did not favour any particular technology.
    The ACCC said in order to qualify for underwriting, projects must be “capable of providing a firm product so that it can meet the needs of commercial and industrial customers”. A number of energy projects would meet that definition, not just coal.

    The prime minister said the underwriting recommendation had “the distinct advantage of being thoroughly technology agnostic” and he said if adopted and designed well, it “should serve to support our goal of cheaper and reliable energy”.

    ***Sims said on Wednesday the market should sort out what technology to favour, not governments, and that while proponents had raised gas and renewables projects to the ACCC over the course of its inquiries, “nobody has mentioned [coal] to us”…

    It criticised “excessively generous” consumer subsidies for solar installations and also the effects of the renewable energy target which had “distorted investment” toward intermittent power sources “in a way that was indifferent to the ability to provide energy to the market when demand requires it”…


    • #

      Pure hypocrisy from Turnbull. As usual. Moral posturing for a man hypocritically backing his own favorite technologies, like the $12Billion of our money he is spending on his incredible Rudd like idea to pump water uphill. Only a genius lawyer would understand such complex technologies and why build his legacy water battery is better than building three coal fired power stations for us. Good thing its not his money. He would be aghast.


      • #

        The fact is that the Victorian ALP government’s forcing Hazelwood to end production has increased the price of power. I wonder if the people already beavering away at the ACCC on this report even noticed.

        Dan Andrews won’t be countenancing the building of a coal fired power plant in his state. This is anti-coal ideology, not economics.

        And behind the purportedly green ideology pushing its undeniably attractive renewables investment packages comes the swarm of globalist financiers blessedly putting downward pressure on our electricity prices.


  • #
  • #

    good news:

    11 Jul: CarbonPulse: UPDATE – Second UK carbon auction in two months fails over lack of interest
    The UK’s fortnightly EU carbon auction was cancelled on Wednesday due to insufficient interest, host ICE said, marking the second failed sale in the past two months.

    11 Jul: CarbonPulse: Ontario govt sets sights on repealing climate law, ditching emissions targets as lawmakers recalled
    Ontario lawmakers have been recalled for a summer session to introduce “urgent legislation” to repeal the law that underpins the province’s now-cancelled cap-and-trade scheme, the new Progressive Conservative government announced Tuesday.

    10 Jul: CarbonPulse: Washington DC omits carbon tax from clean energy bill
    An omnibus clean energy bill introduced by a Washington DC councilmember on Tuesday calls for the US capital to achieve a 100% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2032, but fails to include a carbon tax pushed for by campaigners this year.

    behind paywall:

    Pessimism grows over expected start date for China carbon trading
    Financial Times · 1 day ago
    Chinese industry players are more pessimistic than ever about when the nation will begin trading in a national carbon market, despite

    CarbonBrief re the above: The results of a new survey suggest China’s industry players are more pessimistic than ever about when they will begin trading in a national carbon market. According to an annual report by the China Carbon Forum, 19% of those surveyed expected China’s emissions trading scheme to be fully functional by 2020 or earlier, down from 47% in last year’s survey and 74% in 2015 when the question was first asked. The falling numbers may be because more industry players are being asked to contribute, one of the researchers tells the FT: “Before, only those who were optimistic may have responded [to our survey] so this year’s survey may actually better reflect reality”.

    10 Jul: CarbonPulse: Expectations dim for functional Chinese carbon market before 2020 -survey
    Fewer people believe China’s national carbon market will be fully operational this decade, a new survey has revealed, as policy risks and expectations of lower allowance prices fuel pessimism and hold back industry from making low-carbon investment…


  • #

    10 Jul: Netherlands&You: Carbon Emission Trading in China
    The China Carbon Forum publishes a yearly report on the development of a carbon emissions in China. Today, they presented the 2018 edition of their research at the Embassy of the Netherlands in Beijing. The survey of the China Carbon Forum amongst professionals shows that many expect the Chinese ETS will mature in the coming years, becoming fully functional by 2025…

    While currently only 34% of respondents believe decisions are affected by carbon emissions trading, this increases to 75% in 2025.

    Such numbers are increasingly important, with China’s commitment to the Paris Agreement. The Chinese ETS system is expected to have a big impact, explains Marc Allessie, Director of the Dutch Emissions Authority: “The development of carbon markets in China providing a clear price signal will be of great importance for building carbon markets worldwide. ETS as a market instrument will continuously be improved as witnessed by the recent EU ETS reform and the start of the national ETS in China. Success of the China ETS will be beneficial to the worldwide fight against climate change.”
    LINK See also – The full report is available on the website of the China Carbon Forum

    China Carbon Forum: Latest News: 2018 China Carbon Pricing Survey

    April 24, 2018
    China Carbon Forum together with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), co-organised an event titled “Advancing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimations and Reporting in China and the World”.

    The event featured welcome remarks by Ms Jan Adams, Australian Ambassador to China and Mr Xu Huaqing, Director of the National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation, followed by a keynote address from Dr Helen Cleugh, Research Director of the Climate Science Centre at CSIRO. Mr Xu and Dr Cleugh then joined a distinguished expert panel to share insights on the challenges and opportunities in applying ‘top down’ approaches to improve GHG estimation and reporting in China and internationally, including Dr Yao Bo, Chief Scientist for Greenhouse Gas Measurement at the Chinese Meteorological Association and Mr Knut Alfsen, Special Advisor to CCICED and a Senior Researcher at CICERO. The panel was moderated by Mr Dimitri de Boer, Vice Chairman of China Carbon Forum…

    A full record of the discussion can be downloaded here (LINK)…


  • #

    Asia-Pacific Climate Week 2018
    11-13 July 2018, Singapore
    Asia-Pacific Climate Week 2018 (APCW 2018) is designed to advance regional climate action. The ultimate aim of APCW 2018, the first of what is planned to be an annual gathering, is to support implementation of countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement on climate change and action to deliver on the SDGs.

    With Asia Pacific Carbon Forum featuring as a cornerstone event, APCW 2018 will focus on market-based approaches, economic instruments and climate-aligned finance to drive investment in climate action. Other events include: high-level sessions with the Champions of the Marrakech Partnership; a high-level ministerial; a low emissions development strategy (LEDS) workshop; a regional technology meeting on industrial energy efficiency; and the Asia Pacific Talanoa Dialogue.

    APCW 2018 is organized by the UNFCCC Secretariat under the Nairobi Framework Partnership (NFP), in partnership with the UN Development Programme (UNDP), UN Environment Programme Partnership with the Technical University of Denmark (UNEP-DTU), the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and others.

    Asia Pacific Carbon Forum: 11-13 July 2018 – Singapore
    The event guide of the Asia Pacific Carbon Forum can be found here (PDF) (LINK)

    The Paris Agreement calls for the urgently needed transition to renewable energy and other climate solutions, which requires the mobilization of investments of up to USD 2 trillion annually from all sources—public and private. In Asia and the Pacific, the banking sector has traditionally played the major financing role. However, stricter capital adequacy requirements and maturity mismatches may have constrained lending. Instead, capital markets can complement bank financing and provide an alternative intermediation mechanism between investors and project developers for climate and SDG aligned (green) projects and portfolios…READ ALL

    from the linked 28-page program …for Friday the Thirteenth!

    Friday 13 July: WS 13: Australia & New Zealand – What’s up Down Under?
    Climate policy continues to evolve in Australia, with the latest proposal – a National Energy Guarantee – intended to spur investment in new power generation while responding to spiralling electricity prices. But with money running out for the Emissions Reduction Fund, how is the country faring on plans to meet its Paris Agreement target, and what are the longer term plans? Meanwhile, a change of government in New Zealand is set to see ambitions raised – what does this mean for business and the international carbon market?
    Moderator Brad Kerin, General Manager, CMI (Carbon Market Institute)
    Speakers Elisa de Wit, Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright
    John Carnegie Executive Director, Energy and Infrastructure, Business New Zealand
    Paul Curnow, Director of Climate Finance, Baker & McKenzie
    Emily Spears, Environmental Products Originator, BP Energy Asia
    Alysha Bagasra, Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade, New Zealand


  • #

    10 Jul: Reuters: RPT-U.S. Supreme Court nominee has been a foe of emissions rules
    (Repeats earlier story with no changes)
    By Lawrence Hurley
    Brett Kavanaugh, nominated on Monday to be a Supreme Court justice by U.S. President Donald Trump, is a long-time skeptic of business regulations, especially on rules limiting harmful emissions, although he has called global warming an “urgent” issue…

    Michael Brune, president of the Sierra Club, an environmental activist group, said Kavanaugh is “an extreme ideologue who has time and again proven himself hostile to common-sense environmental safeguards.” …

    In line with the views of White House Counsel Don McGahn, who led the Supreme Court nominee selection process, Kavanaugh has questioned environmental regulations issued by former Democratic President Barack Obama and the legal reach of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    “The selection of Judge Kavanaugh shows that the Trump administration is serious about taming the administrative state,” said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

    Last year, Kavanaugh wrote a ruling that struck down a rule regulating hydrofluorocarbons used in spray cans and air conditioners. Scientists say they contribute to climate change…
    “However much we might sympathize or agree with EPA’s policy objectives, EPA may act only within the boundaries of its statutory authority,” Kavanaugh wrote…

    In another environmental case, Kavanaugh in 2014 criticized the Obama administration for not considering the costs of a rule limiting emissions of mercury and other hazardous pollutants, mainly from coal-fired power plants…
    “To be sure, EPA could conclude that the benefits outweigh the costs. But the problem here is that EPA did not even consider the costs,” Kavanaugh wrote.
    Again, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court later agreed, ruling in 2015 on a 5-4 vote that the Obama administration should have considered compliance costs.


    • #

      I worked for a few decades in Comms and IT. I thought we were pretty hot on TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms). Looking at this report it appears we were just apprentices compared to the climate alarm industry.


  • #

    11 Jul: Reuters: NY appeals court suspends lawyer who sued Chevron over Ecuador claims
    by Jonathan Stempel
    A lawyer who has spent many years pursuing multibillion-dollar litigation blaming Chevron Corp for polluting the Ecuadorean rainforest was suspended on Tuesday from practicing law in New York by a state appeals court.
    Representatives for the lawyer, Steven Donziger, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Donziger in 2011 won an $18 billion judgment, later reduced to $9.5 billion, against Chevron in Ecuador, where he represented villagers who blamed environmental contamination between 1964 and 1992 on Texaco, which Chevron later bought.
    But in 2014, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan said Donziger and his legal team used bribery, coercion and fraud to obtain the judgment, and barred them from “profiting in any way from the egregious fraud that occurred.”

    In Tuesday’s decision, a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division, First Department in Manhattan granted an order sought by the department’s attorney grievance committee finding Donziger guilty of professional misconduct…READ ON

    11 Jul: Reuters: OPEC to Canada: Build pipelines or watch investment flow south
    by Rod Nickel, Devika Krishna Kumar
    CALGARY, Alberta: The president of OPEC urged Canada on Tuesday to invest in infrastructure to move oil and gas, or risk watching investment flow away to the United States…
    “If you don’t have the major infrastructure, investors are going to go to your neighbor, where infrastructure is not an issue,” said Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries President Suhail al-Mazrouei. “Act and act quickly if you want to retain those investors. I am being frank because I want to be a true friend to the Canadians.”
    “I don’t want them to lose opportunities.”

    Mazrouei was speaking in Calgary at a TD investor conference during the city’s Stampede, an annual rodeo that is also the year’s major meet and greet for Canada’s energy sector.
    Mazrouei, the United Arab Emirates’ energy minister, also singled out Canada’s low-priced natural gas. Much of it is produced in landlocked Alberta, and the country lacks a robust liquefied natural gas (LNG) export sector to consume it.

    LNG Canada, a proposed C$40 billion export facility for the British Columbia coast, is being reviewed by its joint venture partners ahead of a final investment decision.
    “The solution is LNG and pipelines to export that natural gas,” Mazrouei said. “If you provide optionality for the gas, it’s going to fix itself.” …


    • #

      “The solution is LNG and pipelines to export that natural gas,” Mazrouei said. “If you provide optionality for the gas, it’s going to fix itself.”

      not sure what providing optionality means , but perhaps no exporting all your gas like Australia, might also secure the energy future of Canada


  • #

    There could a glut of solar panels soon with some very cheap prices.
    China just cut solar subsidies to curb the industry.
    Combined with cuts here.


  • #

    Jo or any other Electrical Power Experts.

    Is there any way you can turn off Mains Baseload Power and make Green Electorates only able to have Renewable Energy to their Districts?

    Starting with the ACT then all other Green Electorates around Australia?

    Would be a good bill to put before the Federal House and Senate if doable


Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>