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

Ten years late the ACCC says rooftop solar deals must stop

The ACCC is a powerful body created to protect consumers in Australia. Now, after ten years of poor people being forced to pay for middle and upper class solar panels in a kind of semi-secret subsidy-tax, NOW, it says maybe it is time to stop?

Go ACCC.

Competition watchdog calls for solar subsidies to be axed

Ben Packham, Sam Buckingham-Jones, The Australian

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission’s electricity affordability report reveals the huge cost of environmental schemes across the National Energy Market, including the large-scale renewable energy target, the small-scale renewable energy scheme and solar feed-in tariffs.

The schemes add a combined $170 to household energy bills in South Australia, $155 in Tasmania, $109 in NSW, $93 in Victoria and $76 in Queensland.

 The ACCC waffles some reasons:

The ACCC said the costs associated with the LRET were expected to fall significantly after 2020, and did not recommend any action to wind up the scheme before its 2030 end date. But it said the SRES, which cost $130 million in 2016-17, should be wound down and abolished by 2021, almost a decade ahead of schedule, to reduce costs for consumers.

When did the ACCC ask what value non-solar customers were getting from this deal?

Solar installers must be starting to panic….

Western Sydney Solar owner Rod Grono said he was worried that abolishing the rooftop solar subsidy would lead to a plunge in solar installations.

And the truth about the return on investment becomes clearer:

“Confidence will fall. For a $10,000, 5.2kW job, (small-scale technology certificates) are about $3300. That means a four-year payback becomes a seven or eight-year payback. That might tip people over,” Mr Grono said.

 Solar is competitive if you give it a one third head start:

Modelling suggested the SRES would fund about 32 per cent of the cost of a 5kW system by 202

 

I’ll have a lot more to say on this. Sadly am crook. Thanks to TDeF, Robber, ROM for help. Watch this space….

*Why is the burden on non solar homes? Because some with solar panels got paid above market rates for green electrons, and other solar homes got the use of subsidized equipment so they just didn’t have to buy so much electricity.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (80 votes cast)
Ten years late the ACCC says rooftop solar deals must stop, 9.5 out of 10 based on 80 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y8lj5kjn

191 comments to Ten years late the ACCC says rooftop solar deals must stop

  • #
    Peter C

    I have argued in the past with friends who have solar panels, saying that they are subsidized, non viable and destructive for the economy of the power grid as a whole.

    I have found them to become aggressive in defence of their solar installations and quite proud of their foresight and canny investment.

    Now thanks to Jo and others here I have some actual figures to back up my position.

    501

    • #
    • #
      ColA

      I have posted my actual installation costs on here before, I am pragmatic about my choice to install a solar system, I certainly do not believe in CAGW, although CO2 probably does have a small influence on temperature. I put solar on my roof simply because I did not see that we skeptics could get enough of our questions into enough of the public form to start the sheeple questioning CAGWatology.
      It’s a 5 kW system, it’s the size of the inverter that counts, I could have 20 kW of panels but it would still only give 5 kW through the inverter. It’s a tier 1 system, good quality panels and inverter.
      Total cost to supply and install by a mid size local company in SE Qld, was $9,473 of which I paid $5,500.

      81

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Can I ask a few questions:
        1. What is your yearly average power consumption.
        2. How much money do you now save on your power bills over a year.
        3. How long will it take you to recoup the financial outlay.

        90

        • #
          ColA

          Graeme#4
          1. I use 10 – 11 kWh per day so @ SAY 10.5 = 3,822 kWh,
          2. I was with DODO, who I found were overcharging me, bill was about $1,600/yr, so I moved to Origin when I put the solar on as they upgraded my meter to digital for free and gave me better supply (28.3 c/kWh) and FIT (16 c/kWh)rates. Only had the system on for a couple of months so no bills yet! The solar company estimates the system will generate an average of about 22 kWh/day, up to 33 kWh in Jan down to 14 kWh/day in June.
          3. Solar Company quoted ROI of ~ 24% with a payback in just over 4 years, mind you these are salesmen and it does depend on your deal with the energy supplier.

          I put in a larger system as so I could add batteries if they ever become cost effective, for me personally it gives me some options for the future if they keep butchering the power system.
          However, I am also very aware that a solar/battery system is far more disruptive for the grid which could leave me in a bit of a quandary!!

          91

          • #
            Chad

            ColA, i know you have not had the system working for long, but doesnt it have facility to log data and report power generated, power exported , power used , etc ??
            Curious how those promissed 20-30kWh outputs compare to the actuals ?

            70

            • #
              Hanrahan

              I had my inverter replaced a month or so ago. The only data it tells me is that it has averaged 10 KW/day for a total of 380 KW and 500W now @4.45 on a cloudless day.

              I lost interest about a week after original installation and I have no idea how long the inverter died before I noticed. I think I got lucky because I wanted to know if it was generating before I switched on my bore pump pretty early, something I’ve only done the once.

              If asked to justify installing it the answer would be simple: Electricity was already high and going higher. Campbell Newman promised to take these subsidies out of the electricity bills and charge them general revenue, something I believe Anna [being nice because she did the right thing] has done.

              My No1 choice would be a return to “the good old days” when none of this was needed but that’s not an option.

              60

            • #
              ColA

              Chad,

              Yes it WILL have all the bells and whistles when Origin change the meter to digital at the end of this month and the solr people finish the connections!

              In the mean time I’ll just have to feel guilty when the sun shines it makes the analogue meter run backwards! …. Hmmm wait a minute!!

              10

              • #
                Chad

                Ahh, OK
                I have a friend with a small 2kW system + battery installed on one of those “flat price” deals.
                But his system feeds a phone App so he can see instantaneous power, battery storage capacity, power used in the house, totals for the day/month/qtr etc, and various performance graphs…..where ever and when ever he care to look.
                Impressive technology..
                …..pity about the overall philosophy !

                20

              • #
                ColA

                Mine will too when it is all hooked up

                10

          • #
            Graeme#4

            Thanks for the data Col – very useful. Still would be interested in your actual savings data at a later date.

            10

      • #

        Col… you are the only person in the world who used this as a reason to install solar panels.

        I did not see that we skeptics could get enough of our questions into enough of the public form to start the sheeple questioning CAGWatology

        you are also the only person in the world who understands the reason.

        73

        • #
          ColA

          Gee Aye,

          Does “public forum” help?

          There is still so limited MSM debate/questions that the CAGW continue to have the high flow of opinion, unless that changes there is little hope of getting the sheeple to question. The younger generation are more into green/environment/save the world so that is an even harder task. I am old with a hard science Degree, the + 40′s appear much more able to question and make objective criticism, something to do with, ‘Can’t put an old head on young shoulders!’

          Solar is a selfish cost saving exercise, as you can see above, paid for almost as much by YOU as me!

          131

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘…..although CO2 probably does have a small influence on temperature.’

        Really? I’ve seen no evidence.

        132

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Maybe not, but try the Ideal gas laws. WARNING: Do not do the calculations if you are frightened of temperature rises of 0.03℃.

          141

          • #
            el gordo

            Ideal gases is a model designed fantasy concept to predict the behavior of gases.

            The plateau in temperatures for a couple of decades seems to suggest the theory, that CO2 causes warming, is worthless.

            112

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              el gordo:

              Maybe it is a fantasy concept but it predicts the surface temperature of any planet (or moon) with an atmosphere above 0.1 bar with fair accuracy. It predicts all planets except Mercury and Mars (which have only a very thin atmosphere) and for Triton. True, Venus is out by 2℃ in just under 400℃, but with this you will see a far better explanation, as far as I am concerned, than anything that NASA or the IPCC have come up with.
              It also disproves the claim that the atmosphere was 3 times thicker in the Mesozoic, and doesn’t predict a higher temperature for the Jurassic than the Cretaceous based on their CO2 levels as would the IPCC if their view wasn’t constrained to the last 40 years. Try it nd see, it’s a simple equation – almost within the grasp of a troll.

              https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/05/17/how-atmospheric-pressure-drives-temperatures-not-trace-gases/

              30

              • #
                el gordo

                Okay, so a temperature rise of 0.03℃ is possible.

                I assume the plateau in world temperature for two decades has nothing to do with CO2, what do you make of it?

                01

          • #
            ColA

            G. No.3,

            No calcs for me. Once the Degree was in my hand, I took great please in taking my thermo books out the back yard and offering them to the God of heat torturing with a ceremonial burning! P-) P-) much to the consternation of my good friend who lectured Thermo at QUT for many years!

            41

        • #
          John F. Hultquist

          Nor have I.
          A radiatively active gas is a molecule that can absorb and emit radiant energy, and behaves both like a wave and like its quantum particle, the photon. Of concern to “global warming” is electromagnetic radiation (EMR) with longer wavelengths than those of visible light, of the infrared range. H2O and CO2 qualify as radiatively active gases.
          With respect to Earth systems, leaps of imagination are required. To get a few degrees of warming from CO2 in the atmosphere is speculation.

          82

          • #
            Graeme#4

            Correct me if I’m wrong John, but CO2 is not a very “bendy” molecule compared to H2O, so a CO2 molecule doesn’t emit much radiation, and that it does emit falls in the same radiation bands as H2O radiation.

            31

      • #
        toorightmate

        The pensioners who gave up $3,973 to assist CoAi must very pleased with their sacrifice PLUS their ongoing sacrifice for the monthly bill subsidy.

        70

        • #
          Hanrahan

          ColA is an amateur compared to my neighbour, he has two 5 KW systems, on his house and garage, both on 44c FIT. Bearing in mind that you can only get the subsidy and FIT on a 5 KW system I wondered how he pulled it off until I noticed on google maps that he had subdivided his block. I’m guessing but I suspect that Ergon may have jacked up about there being no drain on the garage meter board so he strung some fairy lights in the back yard.

          This my yet bite him on the bum because he will be paying extra council rates in perpetuity. And he wanted me to cut down a magnificent gum tree in my back yard that must be 100 yrs old, because it shaded his cells in the morning. Fat chance.

          90

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Having solar might be a double edged sword in years to come.

            If your house is the only one around with the lights on after one of the very many blackouts expected, you will come home one day and find the solar panels gone……or worse…

            20

            • #
              Hanrahan

              My cells are not good enough to power my lights with starlight. :)

              Besides, cells are as useless as a hip pocket in a singlet during a blackout unless you have an isolating inverter system.

              20

            • #
              Graeme#4

              Kind of reminds of all the houses with solar hot water systems on their roofs in the 70s. Don’t see that many these days.

              20

              • #
                Rob S

                A relative, living in Brisbane, has halved his power usage by installing a solar water heater on his house

                00

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Just a couple of quick calculations on your “investment” CoIA.

        You need to add $1,500 to your capital costs for a new Inverter after 10 years and a bit for annual maintenance and cleaning, say $100 PA. That gives you a total all up cost of around $8,500.

        Assuming the life of your system is 15 years, then that cost needs to be depreciated to zero by the end of year 15. That’s an annual depreciation cost of $567.

        Your investment doesn’t come free of charge. There’s an opportunity cost that needs to be added in. NAB shares currently yield around 7% fully franked. Your $8,500 invested there would earn you $595 per annum (probably tax free or with an imputation credit to boot).

        Adding that to the depreciation cost, the cost of your system totals $1,162 per annum.

        Now, you say your electricity use is 3,822 units per annum. If you had to purchase it all from the grid it would cost you a total of $1,081 per annum (@ 28.3 cents/unit).

        Do you see where this is going?

        120

        • #
          Hanrahan

          NAB shares currently yield around 7% fully franked.

          You should not be giving investment advice on a science board. NAB shares show a -5.8% in the last 12 months, CBA -8.4% and another dividend darling TEL -36.4%.

          31

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            “We’ll a’ll be rooned” said Hanrahan “before the year is out”.

            Who’s giving investment advice? I’m quoting a public fact that NAB is currently yielding 7% plus. I did that to substantiate the return I used for the calculation. I made no reference to share price, so what are you going on about?

            30

            • #
              Hanrahan

              And I’m pointing out that there is no risk free investment returning 7%. Investing in rooftop solar is very low risk, methinks.

              “There’ll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
              There will, without a doubt;
              We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
              “Before the year is out.”

              11

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                Well, of course there’s no risk free investment.

                However, when government finally pulls the plug on subsidizing rooftop solar cells, and the power companies pull the plug on the FIT that CoIA seems to be getting (its WA equivalent is 7.1 cents per unit – try that for size) then the viability of rooftop solar will look more like Croke’s crock of cruke.

                “It’s lookin’ crook,” said Daniel Croke;
                “Bedad, it’s cruke, me lad,
                For never since the banks went broke
                Has seasons been so bad.”

                And nobody is arguing that banks are risk free either.

                I’ve given CoIA a calculation. It suggests solar rooftop is not all that it’s cooked up to be. Far from it. And time will show that to be the case.

                I’d be very interested in seeing his installer’s calculation that sold him on the “investment”.

                40

              • #
                toorightmate

                Hanrahan old mate, you’ve got it wrong. Skeptical Sam is talking YIELD and he is correct.
                You are talking capital gain or loss which is a diffenrent chapter in the 101 text book.

                30

              • #
                ColA

                Sam, pull the bank investment BS out of the calc. that’s just a red hearing with nothing to do with the Installation.

                00

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                It has everything to do with the best use of scarce resources.

                The fact that people don’t understand how much of a poor “investment” rooftop solar is, shows just how easy governments and others find pulling the wool over people’s eyes.

                Your 5 Kw system will deliver around 17 KwH per day or average over the year. Each year that will fall away by around 1.1% as the panels deteriorate and you skimp on the cost of keeping them clean.

                Try compounding your $8,500 cash for 15 years at 7% and see what it looks like.

                Certainly looks a lot different to a clapped-out set of solar panels worth bugger-all sitting on your roof waiting for you to pay somebody to take them down and dispose of their toxic contaminants safely to the environment.

                And, if you believe the green lefties and their mendacious mates, electricity is going to get cheaper not dearer, so you’ll be buying off the grid at far lower cost than at present. And when your FIT ceases? Well best of luck. It’s already down to 7.1 cents a KwH in Perth and falling.

                31

          • #
            Chad

            Col, the investment data may not have much to do with the installation, but it has a lot to do with how you fund the project.
            You should not ignor the loss of income from funds used for capital projects.

            40

        • #
          Graeme#4

          I also wanted to follow this line of thought with the off-grid system we were discussing last week – i.e. A savings comparison to taking $65k and investing it for 25 years.

          10

          • #
            Chad

            Graham4,
            Did you catch my reply on that last week ?
            The suggestion was that a 25 kW system ($65k) would be needed to service a 25kWh/ day demand, which i corrected to say that was an excessive capacity system for that demand
            An 8-10kW max panel “name plate” capacity system would be quite sufficient and cost less than $15- $20k installed !….. Without batteries
            Batteries budget at about $1k per kwh.

            00

      • #

        We have had numerous people touting solar for our home in our rural Victorian township, but we live in a location with many large gum trees fronting our home that reside on council land. Those trees block a lot of sunlight summer and winter and there is no way the council would cut down those trees so that we could ‘benefit’ from solar.

        It’s an ironic situation as there are more Greenies in our township than I like and they heavily also tout solar and are trying to organise some form of community renewable energy, while at the same time protesting cutting down of trees in any shape or form. The link that I posted alluded to increased subsidies for owners of solar panels, once again making a mockery of the entire scheme supposedly benefiting all.

        BTW, I can’t see how you manage to use only around 10 kWh/day. With nothing much more than a computer, TV and LED lights running in our place (we use wood heating in winter), we use that much each day. Start cooking or doing laundry and we’re looking at 20 kWh/day.

        40

        • #
          Rob Leviston

          10-11 Kw per day is about all we use. Only three of us at home now.
          However, I am intrigued that Col said he was ripped off by Dodo? We are with them, and last check, said that was our best bet! (Last year)
          Maybe I should check again.
          Having said that, apparently the FIT rules have changed again, and we’ll be back down to 9.9c!

          00

          • #
            Graeme#4

            I’m also surprised at these low figures for a yearly average, as it’s just me at home and I chew through about 25 kWh a day, electricity and gas. Must re-check.

            00

        • #
          ROM

          The UK faced a similar problem as does the Australian government , both of which were brought on by the stupidity of the politicals who seem incapable of working out that any schemes they think was a Good Idea At the Time will be rorted a
          with a much larger than expected and budgetted for amount of finance required.
          Or will be so darn complicated and littered with incoherent red tape and pointless that only a very few will have a bar of it even after the politicals have spent millions on it..

          Pollies unfortunately never learn or are incapable of learning from others mistakes even when those mistakes are as obvious as the proverbial dog’s etc.
          .
          Now this is what happened in the UK when solar installation subsidies were cut by 65%

          Per Guardian; Apr 2016

          UK solar power installations plummet after government cuts

          Fall in solar power was expected after ministers announced 65% cut to feed-in tariff, but size of drop-off will still dismay green campaigners

          The amount of household solar power capacity installed in the past two months has plummeted by three quarters following the government’s cuts to subsidies, according to new figures.

          A fall in solar power was expected following a 65% reduction in government incentives paid to householders, but the size of the drop-off will dismay green campaigners who want take up on clean energy sources to accelerate.
          &
          The capacity deployed by small solar power installations has fallen by 74% compared with the same period last year.

          Turnbull has a very simple option right there.
          Just Stop the subsidies dead in their tracks for the installation of domestic and solar farm systems.

          Let all those who are now living indirectly on the public teat by selling heavily subsidised solar systems and all those who have boasted of their income from their heavily public subsidised solar systems learn the hard way that you never ever trust a government to hold to one track forever particularly when changes are in the wind when elections come due and the politicals get yet asnother shuffle in cabinet or the party / parties.

          And bring in substantial grid access fees for all solar and wind generators of power to pay for all the heavier duty infrastructure required to handle the power from a widely distributed lot of solar and wind generators.
          Plus heavy grid access charges to pay the compensation for the vastly increased need for the AEMO to now constantly monitor and intervene to maintain the phase frequencies as the intermittent renewable energy , both solar and wind keep on their completely unpredictable generating profiles.

          And then as a final;

          IRENA; End of life Management ; Solar Photo Voltaic panels;
          .
          Solar panels at the end of life, about 20 years of operation are increasingly being classed over seas as a toxic due to the composition of the metals used to generate power that has to have expensive treatment to enable the old solar panels to be sequestered away and not pollute water and soil through leaching.
          It appears that the EU requires the original producer of the panels to take charge of the safe disposal of old panels [ 30 years life according to EU literature probably because the solar radiation in the northern lartitudes of most of Europe are much kinder to even PV panels than is the Lower latitude locations.]

          So guess what your chances are of finding the original chinese producer of your old ,no longer viable panels might be and the chances of getting them to take responsibility for disposing of or recycling those panels.

          If not the original producer of the panels then the current owner will be saddled with the responsibility for disposing of or recycling those old panels and their toxic metals.

          And the tonnages of solar panels to be disposed of or recycled if a cost efficient way of recycling these toxic metals can be found;

          Annual end-of- life PV panel waste is projected to increase to more than 60-78 million metric tonnes cumulatively by 2050 according to this report’s model.

          20

        • #
          Bodge it an scarpa

          Your town sounds. Very similar to Healsville.

          00

          • #
            Annie

            And ours, the other side of the Black Spur. These pushers of micro schemes are really coming on strongly these days.

            00

      • #

        ALL gases are recycled. ALL!

        10

    • #
      Geoff

      Does anyone believe the ACCC is going to achieve ANYTHING that reduces the power bill?

      There is an election coming. ALL the polls says there will be a change in government.

      The ONLY thing that is certain is yet more feel good reports instituted by Turnbull, that appeal to the Abbott base.

      None of this is going to make anyone build a low cost, base load generator or even extend the life of a fully paid off base load generator.

      The is a vacuum of LEADERSHIP.

      310

      • #
        manalive

        Turnbull will never renege Lucy will not allow it, he will be banished to the boat house at the slightest suggestion.

        140

      • #
        ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

        Does anyone believe the ACCC is going to achieve ANYTHING that reduces the power bill?

        Pfft.. Never. The ACCC has proven itself toothless and therefore worthless in practically every single one of its promised “we’ll look into this..” puke.

        In fact, “looking into things” is about all they ever do besides waste money existing. Buuuut.. Because of income tax and taxes on just about everything, grabbermint stands to get pretty much all the money back it gives to the ACCC. All we do is lose.

        40

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Maybe.

          However, at least somebody in government is telling Top-hat Turnbull that he’s a dill.

          10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I have argued in the past with friends who have solar panels…

      And you get a defensive attitude about their solar installations. The reason is simple enough, they provide power for free, there are subsidies after all and the utility must pay for the rest. So they buy systems with someone else’s money and they’re happy. There is no incentive for anyone to think long term about what the end result will be. If you sold solar panels and all the gear that goes with them you’s also just push the immediate advantage. You want to make a sale.

      Every one of my neighbors with solar installations would say the same, it’s an advantage because it lowers my bill. And the plain truth is that not very many among us could do the analysis needed to foresee the ultimate big problem when everyone has solar panels on their roof. And those who can do that analysis are more than willing to kick that can on down the road for as long as possible so they keep profiting from these things, either monetarily or politically or both.

      I’ve talked to the people around me and now I need to get to my neighbor across the street who put 5 big panels on the roof about 2 years ago. They will have a history to tell me about. I’m betting I’ll get a sterling success story.

      And that’s the problem. It’s a short term advantage. But what happens when everyone is pumping power back into the system? What happens when the subsidies end? What happens when reality bites? And no one is looking at those questions, much less the answers.

      20

  • #
    RobK

    I am sorry to hear you are unwell Jo. I hope you are on the mend soon.
    The way I understand it, the small and large energy certificates are each part of the RET scheme so terminating the small certificates scheme will merely free up more large certificate scheme funds…..unless they reduce the RE Target. (That will involve a tussle with union backed superannuation investment funds)

    160

    • #
      Peter C

      RET’s are the problem.

      Can Jo or someone link to the ACCC report. Does it mention the RET?

      50

      • #
        • #
          RobK

          From the executive summary:

          Policies associated with the objective of reducing carbon emissions have been problematic. Australia has committed, through international treaties, to reduce its carbon emissions. The electricity sector has, understandably, been a key focus for these efforts given the historically carbon-intensive nature of electricity generation. However, various policy failures here have hurt consumers. As the Finkel review identified, there has been a failure to facilitate an orderly transition from carbon-intensive generation technologies to cleaner ones. This is highlighted by the relatively sudden decisions by the owners of the Northern and Hazelwood power stations to close those plants. The short notice of closure of these plants did not enable the market to respond to expected shortfalls in capacity with adequate and timely investment.

          70

          • #
            RicDre

            A summary of the Executive Summary: To error is human but to really mess things up requires the implementation of Government Policies.

            270

    • #
      sophocles

      Get well soon, Jo.

      121

    • #
      Robber

      Robk, The Large-scale Renewable Energy Target, encourages investment in large-scale renewable power stations to achieve 33,000 gigawatt hours of additional renewable electricity generation by 2020. The target stays the same from 2020 to 2030.

      The 2018 small-scale technology percentage (STP) is 17.08%. (It is separate from the LRET). The estimated relevant acquisition of electricity used in setting the 2018 STP is 212,400 gigawatt hours (GWh). Small-scale technology certificates are provided ‘up front’ for the systems’ expected power generation over a 15 year period or, from 2017, from the installation year until 2030 when the scheme ends.

      So there are two separate schemes – the LRET and the SRES.

      50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Robber:

        That would mean another 14,160 GWh p.a. of solar (small scale), so total of 47,160. If 33,000 provides 28% they’ve snuck the total renewables up to 40.0%.
        I foresee blackouts and a charge for running solar panels. That means the scam artists will switch to selling batteries.

        60

  • #
    Another Ian

    Around this area

    “But listen to him on the South Australian blackouts, “(South Australia’s error) was a failure to integrate energy and climate policy. We’re correcting that with the NEG”.

    Total crap Chairman. What the hell is ‘climate policy’?”

    More at

    “Chairman Mal going on about “climate policy” as if he can dial up the global temperature”

    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2018/07/chairman-mal-going-on-about-climate-policy-as-if-he-can-dial-up-the-global-temperature.html

    130

    • #
      Another Ian

      Further O/T

      ” New data show Canadian investment in clean technology has cooled off over the past three years, despite myriad programs introduced by Ottawa to boost spending on green infrastructure and shift the country towards a lower carbon economy.

      Canadian private sector investment in clean technologies have fallen by half since 2014, dropping to a combined US$9.4 billion over the past three years, compared with US$19.5 billion between 2012-2014, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Investments rose to US$3.3 billion last year, compared to US$2.3 billion, but is less than half of the peak in 2014. Investments in the first two quarters of 2018 appear to be below the fourth-quarter running average, BNEF data shows. […]

      “Any time you have a ratcheting down of subsidies, in the immediate aftermath you see a total destruction of the market,” said Amy Grace, head of North American research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.”

      The link is entitled “Do tell”

      http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2018/07/11/we-dont-need-no-stinking-giant-fans-5/

      100

  • #
    Graham Richards

    I signed a contract which is valid thru to 2028. Many others in Queensland have the same contracts. Breach of contract will cost government $ millions. Government creates its own problems as soon as they start implementing nonsensical socialist policies.& then expect the public to pay. We did not sign up up to solar because we believed in global warming we signed up because we could counter the totally unnecessary increases in the price of electricity. Now hey want to cancel the contracts. Sorry guys we’re cancelling our contracts to vote for either of you again until this insanity stops.

    The tricky one today is the price of petrol/diesel which I believe has had a carbon tax by stealth forced on it. We need a whistleblower now & that’ll blow the government right out of the water. The MSM won’t even whisper about the possibility or deny it outright which means it’s being covered up.

    252

    • #
      RicDre

      To (loosely) paraphrase Lewis Carroll:

      “When we create a contract,’ Chairman Mal said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what we choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

      ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make a contract mean so many different things.’

      ’The question is,’ said Chairman Mal, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

      130

    • #
      Robber

      Graham, I think that the ACCC is recommending that your high feedin tariff be paid out of government revenues, instead of being an impost on all other electricity consumers. And that the upfront generation of small scale certificates based on the estimated generation until 2030 that again becomes an impost on other electricity consumers be abolished.

      40

      • #
        Annie

        One can’t help wondering where those gov’t revenues are going to come from?

        51

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Annie:

          Us, of course as you know. But after the crocodile tears the State tax rises will show up the cost of the feed in tariff. Pollies don’t like being unpopular.

          50

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          It sounds like it comes from everybody who works.

          Whereas currently, it comes from everyone who uses power-station power.

          This means, that going off-grid does not relieve you from paying for everybody else’s power.

          50

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            I think there is much benefit in buying a pellet mill, and recycling old cardboard etc into compressed pellets, to run house heating via a pellet boiler.

            If the gummint says “you cant use wood or pellets, but have to use gas or electricity” there will be much consternation, as it will be clear to even the most dimmest of people, that the gummint really are trying to hold our heads underwater and telling us to breathe in……..

            20

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Original Steve:

              What happened to that old idea of using rolled up newspaper etc. as logs in the fire. Indeed I believe there is/was a vast stockpile of newspaper somewhere near the Vic.-NSW border. The Greens couldn’t object to recycling could they? Of course they would in the name of making everybodies life miserable and expensive.
              Since the Chinese won’t take our rubbish (recycling) anymore you could ride to the rescue on a white lamborghini and burn all the recycling that Councils committed to in a fit of green lunacy and now can’t get rid of.
              A lot of the decomposable stuff could be placed in large, deep closed pits and let the microbes convert it to methane for fuel (remember to call this Carbon Capture and apply for a Governmentgrant to fund it.)
              Hail! Oh Saviour of the Nation.

              00

  • #
    manalive

    Australians are crying out for an energy policy focused on cutting household and business power prices, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says …
    … Mr Turnbull said the ACCC backed the coalition’s national energy guarantee policy, which is aimed at bringing down prices while guaranteeing reliability and cutting emissions … (The Australian).

    There are some by-elections coming up on the 28th, if anything at all it will be a May-style-Brexit-style con I expect.

    100

    • #
      Asp

      Turnbull should be promoted to the BS hall of fame for “…… aimed at bringing down prices while guaranteeing reliability and cutting emissions …” This is even better than the silver-haired bodgie’s assertion that ‘…..by the year 1990, not child in Australia will live in poverty..’. At least Hawke’s assertion was within the realms of reality, irrespective of how improbable.

      30

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Asp:

        So Turnbull’s claim boils down to “until 2030 no wind farm owner will know what poverty is”.

        10

  • #
    pattoh

    There are some by-elections coming up on the 28th, if anything at all it will be a May-style-Brexit-style con I expect.

    I wonder if TA will be on the campaign trail in the same “Bus” as Lord Golden[ gold plated windfarm] Sacks? / sarc.

    70

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    I’m confident their estimate for the increase in household energy bills is seriously understated. We’ve been complaining about doubling the cost of electricity, not just adding $76 per “what time period, it doesn’t say”.

    80

  • #

    You know, I reckon most of this is about creating markets which would not otherwise exist. Not just heaps of hardware (imported) and debt. Also, bureaucracies, taxes, fines, subsidies, consultancies, personality cults…pointless revenue sources which have been brought into existence by constant green preaching, publish-or-perish science, repetitious messaging and media mesmerism. All pointless. All good for the types of people who do lunch with the types of leaders we get given, whether blue team or (shudder) red team. Very good for them.

    Think of the way the health and fitness fad of the eighties made tap water valuable when it was put into a plastic bottle with a sky blue label. Think of all the military hardware parked useless in Afghanistan (those notorious Italian transports!) because…er, you know…freedom and stuff. Think certain light bulbs.

    Imagine if the grid was there, powered adequately, upgraded and modernised as needed, using not wasting coal, doing its thing…Where’s the lolly in that?

    When we feel like thumping a wall and whining “don’t they realise?”…maybe they do realise. Maybe they do know that the War on Coal involves burning our own coal in ageing clunkers while selling mountains of the stuff to Asia. Maybe they’re like the guy who came up with the idea of tap water in plastic bottles with sky blue labels. Maybe they do realise. And so?

    160

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      It’s been noted here and at WUWT many times, that many people are confused about job creation projects.

      Where a power station can create X amount of power, on Y footprint of land, operated by Z number of people.

      So many people think that creating 0.01 X power, on 10 Y footprint of land, and require 20 Z number of people, is a great thing. It creates jobs.

      They seriously need to teach The Brocken Window Fallacy in primary schools.

      40

      • #

        My point is that perhaps the people behind and in front of these schemes do understand that they are breaking windows, so obvious are the waste and counter-productive results of Big Green. The rooftop subsidy-soakers, Mt Lithium, Uphill Snowy, the whirlygigs, the wave generators now sleeping with the fishes, the desal where Mick Gatto could park his cranes…maybe it’s as obvious to them as to us what a colossal waste it has all been. After all, some of them have worked in banks, places where you count stuff all day long. Oh yes, there’s been a banker or two in this game.

        Perhaps to understand their motives one needs to simplify, take off the climate hat, take off the policy hat, even take off the Bilderberg hat…and put on the Panama hat. If you know what I mean.

        80

  • #
    Robber

    As Jo highlighted a month ago, “Solar overload — “Costs a fortune” as the super Duck Curve flood of electricity hits Australia“, each year as more solar power arrives when we don’t need it in the middle of the day, the belly of the load curve swings lower and lower. Then as the sun fades and the peak need of the day arrives after dark the demand ramps up, and so must the supply. This peak is the ducks head. The neck of the duck is when generators must ramp up steeply to take over from the failing sun. It’s often when prices spike.
    So maybe just someone in the ACCC reads Jo’s blog!
    And possibly the generators and AEMO have also started pointing out that we are trending towards a demand on the grid at midday of just 12,000 MW by 2020, and if the wind is blowing hard over 4,000 MW of that may be from wind, but reliable generators must be on standby to deliver 26-30,000 MW for the evening peak, when the sun isn’t shining and the wind may not be blowing. So the utilisation and hence the economics of coal and gas generators becomes more and more marginal, unless even higher prices become the norm.

    The reality is that we could switch off all solar and wind generators and have reliable and affordable 24/7 electricity provided by a mix of coal, gas and hydro. Ah for the days just a few years ago when we had wholesale prices below $50/MWhr, instead of the $80-100/MWhr we have today, to which must be added the costs of the LRET and SRES payments to wind/solar/hydro generators.

    120

    • #

      Robber writes this: (my bolding here)

      The reality is that we could switch off all solar and wind generators and have reliable and affordable 24/7 electricity provided by a mix of coal, gas and hydro. Ah for the days just a few years ago when we had wholesale prices below $50/MWhr, instead of the $80-100/MWhr we have today, to which must be added the costs of the LRET and SRES payments to wind/solar/hydro generators.

      The bolded bit is 100% true, and you can also add in rooftop solar power as well.

      You wonder how I can say this.

      I have been doing this new Series for eight weeks now, so 56 days.

      There have been 14 of those days (and that’s one quarter of that time) when ALL the wind power, ALL the solar power from commercial plants and ALL the rooftop solar power have delivered LESS THAN 2% of the power required at the evening Peak, and five of those days have been lower than 1%, with the lowest at 0.3%

      That evening peak is the highest power consumption we have, and it happens every day at 5.30/6PM, and over those eight weeks averages for those peaks have been between 28500MW and 32000MW.

      Now, the point here is that even though the Country is consuming the most electricity it actually can consume, on those 14 days, ALL OF IT was actually being delivered from coal fired power, natural gas fired power, and hydro power.

      From the low point of 0.3% (100MW of that Peak) to the high point of 2%, (600MW) is between one and three Units at a gas plant just waiting for the call already to ‘fire up’.

      The fact that those three main sources have already proved they can handle it is an indictment on the total and utter uselessness of wind power, solar power, and rooftop solar power.

      There could be none of it, and we would still get by.

      Tony.

      320

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Thanks Robber and Tony for highlighting the irrelevance of Wind and Solar.

        A complete and utter parasitic growth that has developed in our Society on the basis of a witch hunt focussed on CO2, paradoxically, the gas of life.

        KK

        141

      • #
        PeterS

        So we could spend trillions on more wind and solar farms with batteries to achieve perhaps as much as 40% power from renewables (actual not just nameplate) yet the impact on the climate will be zero. Australia is fast becoming the dumbest nation on this planet, especially since hundreds of coal fired power stations are being built by other nations who also are party to the Paris Agreement. One has to wonder why both Turnbull and Shorten want to focus on renewables while the others are expanding on their use of coal (much of it from Australia) in spite of the Paris Agreement. Another questions is why voters in general will still vote for their respective political parties given all this. Has Australians collectively gone mad?

        110

        • #

          Dig the coal up – provides jobs

          Transport to coal loaders via rail and load the ships – provides jobs and income for State owned rail. (Gladstone coal loader throughput loaded onto ships last year 129 Million Tonnes)

          Sell coal – provides income to States in the form of royalties, and to the federal Government as well in export earnings.

          Use the coal to fire the coal fired power plants. No benefit really, well nowhere near all of the above anyway.

          They make more money selling the coal overseas.

          It’s only about the money.

          Tony.

          150

          • #
            Mark M

            And of course, don’t forget the permanent drought breaking abilities of coal mining …

            Coal miners to blame for Queensland floods, says Australian Greens leader Bob Brown

            https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/news-story/cbfe12042fa9c4149ea3c10524f57344

            60

          • #
            PeterS

            Yes it’s all about the money but here in Australia it’s not just in relation to coal. Mark Butler for example says building a coal fired power stations is a fantasy so it will never happen under Labor+Greens. Nothing new there. It’s not really any different with the LNP. I am still not sure why both major parties are using the Paris Agreement as a reason not to build coal fired power stations while many others who are also party to that agreement are building coal fired power stations as though the Paris Agreement dictates they should to meet their targets. Here in Australia it is having the opposite effect and instead we are forced to build only on renewables. I think the public are still asleep on al this despite the fact the information has been available to all for some time now. If the voters keep voting LNP or ALP as the main preference then they have to share a large part of the blame for allowing this nation to go over the cliff.

            40

          • #
          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Tony, I think let them switch off the coal and gas and hydro and run on renewables and see how long it takes for the punters to scream for them to be turned back on.

            The lefties would melt down – no ABC, or Pravda on the Yarra…..and no way to charge their precious smart phones….

            20

      • #
        Serp

        Not only would we get by but it would be cheaper.

        20

    • #
      Chad

      It will be interesting to see what happens as those early rooftop solar systems reach the end of their life with failing inverters damaged /inefficient panels , combined with the reduction/ elimination of the Subsidies and high FIT that initiated their installation.
      Many will also have changed owners (house sold) , so will the owners now decide to reinvest to replace those 20+ yr old systems ?
      At the very least , even if they do get renewed, it will mean that the flakey solar installation industry will have to redouble its efforts to keep up, and at the other extreem, it will cause a slowing of the rate of increase in RT solar installed capacity.
      My bet is that if the SREC and FIT disapears, many will not replace dead RT solar systems !

      60

  • #
    Neville

    Don’t forget that S&W generates just 0.8% of the world’s TOTAL energy.
    And this may increase to just 3.6% by 2040, so Dr Hansen was correct when he said that Paris COP 21 was just BS and fra-d.
    He also said that a belief in S&W energy is akin to a belief in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. IOW just another silly Fairy tale.
    Here’s Lomborg’s 2018 detail of the S&W fantasy.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/where-do-we-get-most-of-our-energy-hint-not-renewables/

    60

  • #
    Sean

    What ever is going on with residential solar has got to be a drop in the bucket compared to demolishing existing, functional coal fired power plants and replacing them with wind and solar. The residential solar might be at most a third of electricity the solar owner consumed whereas the destruction of coal plants making power for 2-3 cents a KW-hr are being replaced by sources that are 3-4x more expensive and its not a portion of the cheap power, it’s all of it. If the ACCC is “late” on rooftop solar, it’s completely out to lunch on baseload power.

    60

  • #
    Alistair

    It is probably well worth re-visiting Notricks to see how the German solar industry is coping with a post-subsidy Climate change.

    Essentially it would appear they have passed peak solar.

    30

    • #
      Mark M

      Trump tells the Germans they are captive to the Russians for their energy whilst the Germans turn theirs into useless renewables.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbUp60CYkDE

      The look on their face?

      Priceless!

      Winning.

      Thank you, President Trump.

      71

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        The people who’ve paid the biggest price for Russian natural gas are the Syrians, and also the Germans for a very different reason. The Saudis and Yemen have been trying to get a gas pipeline built from their countries into Turkey so they can sell gas to Europe. Of course Putin was having none of that.

        One rumour is that the terrorist groups that invaded Syria were sponsored by the Saudis to overthrow Assad and establish a Saudi-friendly government which would have no objection to the pipeline being built.
        The humanitarian fallout from the Syrian “civil war” (hah!) has been felt across western europe. The well known incidents of assault in Germany were only due to an influx of refugees from Syria. So Germans are paying the price of Russian gas in two ways.

        It’s all a very messy affair and is absolutely another case of political interference in the energy market, with explosive and tragic consequences against which our own domestic electricity price rise seems quite meagre in comparison.

        Even when we’ve got it bad, we’ve still got it pretty good here.

        30

        • #
          ROM

          I think all Australians every now and then should get down on their knees and thank the good lord that we are just one nation with one overall government and just one basic language and one major culture occupying in its totality one continent that is stuffed with minerals and commodities and all the basic requirements that we as a people and a nation need to survive and prosper.

          And our nation and our continent comes complete with no land borders with anybody else that would give ready passage to whoever wants to or intends to create trouble and strife for our people and our nation.

          Only the USA with a friendly racially and linguistically similar Canada right across the full width of the North American continent bears any similarity to the enviable position we Australians have as a single nation occupying an entire continent with no land borders with any other nation in this world of strife and war and racially and religious and culture based intolerance and hate.

          60

          • #
            ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

            We could be so much better off without a greedy grabbermint, sucking our pockets and our resources dry on expensive and pointless schemes, importing people that don’t work, have multiple wives and multiple children to each, everything on welfare, taxing and regulating home-grown businesses to the hilt until they’re forced to go offshore to survive.

            Europe is also culpable and they’re doing all this for a reason. What’s a bet it’s a mandate from the UN and some moron1cally stup1d contractual signatures on pieces of paper regarding Agenda 21/30.

            When will they ever learn to say “no” and when will WE ever learn to not let them?

            20

      • #
        toorightmate

        Even the rabid Trump-hater, CNN is battling to call his European comments rubbish.
        It is interesting how he spells out the facts. It is as though he now knows that the media will NOT spell out the facts. Canadian tarriffs on USA produced goods is a great example. Despite the imbalance, the left wingers (whingers?) still say he is being horribele to Canada.
        Now they do not want him to talk to Putin alone.
        I would trust Putin more than I do NYT, WaPo, CNN, Fairfax, ABC, etc.

        10

  • #
    Ian1946

    O/T I have some clown on Facebook trying to say that Engie closed down Hazelwood out of the blue, had nothing with the tripling of coal royalties.

    He also claims that he worked there and the place was falling apart. I seem to remember that before it shut, Tony from OZ poster daily generation figures that showed that it was generating around 90% of it’s rated capacity.

    Can anyone clarify this?

    70

    • #
      GD

      Ian,

      here’s Tony’s original article about the final days of Hazelwood.

      https://papundits.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/hazelwood-power-plant-closure/

      “The plant opened in 1964, and is now 53 years old. At opening, the eight units each had a 200MW generator, for a total Nameplate of 1600MW. As the plant is now so old, those old generators cannot make their original maximum power, but even now they are still managing to deliver a total Nameplate of between 1374 and 1380MW, which is still around 86% of its original rated maximum power, which is not bad for generators that are now 53 years old.”

      I hope I haven’t infringed your copyright, Tony. You are an invaluable source of knowledge and in educating myself about this energy debacle, you are my first port of call.

      00

  • #
    PeterS

    Turnbull has repeatedly stated he is against any notion of subsidising or assisting coal fired power stations because he is against backing one technology over another as it leads to higher power prices. Now that the ACCC has advised rooftop solar panels must stop for that very reason Turnbull must now act on that advice. The same thing can be said for all renewables on any scale since Turnbull believes no technology should be subsidised at the expense of another as it only leads to higher prices. Given he also announced that NEG will lead to a lowering of prices it is mandatory then that it will contain instructions to remove all subsidies and support for renewables. To do otherwise would mean he is a fake of historic proportions, like Rudd and Gillard. If he is still the leader of the party at the next election and subsidies on renewables are still in place then anyone who votes for LNP (or ALP+Greens for that matter) is oblivious, a fool or both, no different to those who voted for Rudd’s or Gillard’s part in the past.

    120

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Good one.

      30

    • #
      Dennis

      Question: Chairman Mal what do you really believe in?

      Answer: What would you like me to say to believe in.

      50

      • #
        Dennis

        Union Secretary Shorten has already commented that he agrees with whatever, whatever that happens to be.

        30

    • #
      Another Ian

      Peter S

      In that general vicinity IMO

      “A woman decided to take one of the jobs that most Australians are not willing to do.

      She applied for a job in a lemon grove and seemed to be far too qualified for the job.

      She had a liberal arts degree from the University of Adelaide and had worked as a social worker and a school teacher.

      The foreman frowned and said, “I have to ask you, have you had any actual experience in picking lemons ??”

      “Well, as a matter of fact, I have,” she said. I’ve been divorced three times, owned two Jeeps, voted twice for Labor, and once for Clive Palmer.”

      She starts in the morning.”

      From an email

      70

  • #
    pat

    jo – hope you feel better soon.

    10 Jul: AFR: Super funds told to nominate a director for Hayne grilling
    by Joanna Mather
    The Hayne royal commission has told more than 30 superannuation funds to nominate a director to be free to take the stand during hearings starting on August 6.
    Fund executives say governance will be a major theme, specifically the legal obligation for directors to act solely in the best interests of members, not unions, employer groups or shareholders.
    Along with nominating a director to appear, the funds have been asked to provide papers for meetings of the board and sub-committees dating back five years…

    With industry funds, sponsoring organisations such as unions could seek to influence investment decisions based on industrial relations concerns, the PC report said…
    https://www.afr.com/news/super-funds-told-to-nominate-a-director-for-hayne-grilling-20180710-h12hak

    11 Jul: SMH: ‘You have to drop this’: former exec accuses super fund of conflicts
    By Simon Johanson
    Australian workers have amassed $2.1 trillion in super funds, the world’s fourth largest pool of managed funds.
    Industry super funds are in the midst of a bitter battle with their for-profit counterparts over governance, fees, members and performance…
    Super funds expect governance to be a major theme at next month’s royal commission hearings – particularly the legal obligation for directors to act solely in the best interests of members, not unions, employer groups or shareholders…
    https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/you-have-to-drop-this-former-exec-accuses-super-fund-of-conflicts-20180711-p4zqw6.html

    Dec 2017: Switzer Daily: Industry funds face spotlight in Royal Commission
    by Andrew Main
    There’s one possible benefit coming from all this.

    ***Ken Hayne’s been specifically asked to see if the spending “of superannuation members’ retirement savings for any purpose that does not meet community standards and expectations, or is otherwise not in the best interests of members.”
    Like the independent directors issue, that’s still a specific swipe at the Industry funds. At least this time there’s more justification.
    http://www.switzer.com.au/the-experts/andrew-main/industry-funds-face-spotlight-in-royal-commission/

    ***”for any purpose that does not meet community standards and expectations”? hmmm. what chance anyone asking about investments related to CAGW policies?

    40

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    While the point about subsidies is correct, the ACCC report also highlights how the distributer’s ‘gold plating’ has had a huge effect on prices as well as the lack of competition on the retail side. Full disclosure here, I’ve just done 10 years with a poles and wires company, and I can say that there is no justification for the price you pay, and the cost of providing the service.

    60

    • #
      el gordo

      Do country people pay more for electricity than city folk, because of the poles and wires privatisation?

      20

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Well yeas they do el Gordo, not because of privatisation though, you need a lot more poles and wires per consumer in the regions, which, when you apply the pricing formula makes it much more expensive. For example about 1 million New South Welshmen live in the regions, but that regional footprint is 90% of the state. Or you could argue that the urbanites are subsidising the country folk. If that was the case, you could double dip by putting solar on your country homestead, and getting both subsidies.

        40

        • #
          el gordo

          Thanks Peter, found this at Rural Health 2013.

          ‘….it is clear that rural and regional residential customers in New South Wales are paying nearly double the Service Availability Charge (SAC) and significantly more per kWh in comparison with urban consumers.’

          Its easy to see this hotbed of discontent boiling over if Turnbull makes a wrong move.

          40

          • #
            toorightmate

            The cost for poles and wires is minisule for people in the bush compared with the value to our GDP of primary produe and mining products.
            If you are in any doubt as to who pulls their weight in this country (bushies or city slickers) then you are an outright dill.

            10

            • #
              el gordo

              We are a food bowl and our agricultural exports are financially equivalent to mining, its a crying shame that the bush is still treated with contempt by city centric politicians.

              Premier Gladys spending all that money from the sale of poles and wires on capital city infrastructure, is an obscenity.

              10

  • #
    David Maddison

    As with windmills I am sick of solar panels being quoted at nameplate rather than their actual capacity to generate fundamentally useless intermittent electricity.

    61

    • #

      They (ALL) use Nameplate because it makes it seem so huge.

      You only need look at the power curve for the power generation from all the rooftop solar panels in Australia to see just how useless they really are.

      Note here that in an earlier media release about how rooftop solar installations are literally ‘smashing it out of the park’, they quoted the Nameplate as 7100MW, and I have seen some totals quoted as high as 7800MW.

      So then, let’s actually just take the lower Nameplate there of 7100MW.

      Let’s then see just how much power is being generated by all those rooftop installations.

      This is the power generation curve from yesterday 10th July 2018. (shown in the image at this link) (and how I sometimes wish we could put images up at Joanne’s site here)

      Note the coloured lines, indicating the total power generation from the different areas of each State, one each for NSW, SA, and Vic, four in Qld, and three in Tas.

      The black line is the combined total for all of those areas of every State.

      Note the peak there, 3750MW at around 1PM, and this is around what it has been for the last weeks or so.

      So, even at the absolute peak of power generation, the peak is only half the Nameplate, and at only one point in time.

      Now the average of a sine wave is Peak multiplied by 0.637, and here I’m being very sanguine, because that’s not even all that close to a sine wave, almost triangular, so I’m actually overstating it.

      So, 3750 X 0.637 = 2388MW, so rounded up to 2400MW.

      That’s the average of what you see there.

      Now, look at the X axis, time, and note that the time for generation is from 7.30AM till 5.30PM, so ten hours.

      So the average for the day is average X 10 and divided by 24, and keep in mind that the daily average power generation is the industry standard, so the average for the day is now 1000MW.

      So we have here a working Capacity Factor for the day of 14.1%

      That’s a total power generation on the day of (Power multiplied by 24 and divided by 1000, converted from MW to GWH) of 24GWH, and for this day, that’s 4.07% of the total power consumed in Australia.

      Virtually all of that power is consumed by just the homes with the panels, and some surrounding homes only, as none of it would extend outside the local suburb where the panes are on the roofs.

      It’s NOT contributing to the overall power generation for consumption other than for a few hours around Midday when it’s supplying homes, and note that at the time when peak power kicks in, at 5.30/6PM, the total power output from EVEY rooftop panel in Australia is ….. ZERO

      Yeah yeah yeah! I know it’s Winter and in Summer it’s humungously higher!

      Well, no, not by all that much really, because with the overall yearly CF at around 17%, then it’s only around 20% in Summer.

      Useless.

      Tony.

      70

  • #
    Annie

    I do hope you feel better very soon Jo.

    31

  • #
    wal1957

    As with windmills I am sick of solar panels being quoted at nameplate rather than their actual capacity to generate fundamentally useless intermittent electricity.

    Fixed!

    40

  • #
    Mark M

    Best part about owning solar panels is the satisfaction of knowing those who could never afford them are helping to subsidize yours.

    50

  • #
    ROM

    Just poking the future and the solar system aficionados with a big stick.

    Rule No! 1, 2, 3 and 4

    What the government giveth, the government can and will also take away!
    .
    A small piece of reality that almost every individual and corporation that manages to get its snout into the government coffer’s trough nearly always forgets when trying to predict the future of their subsidy supported enterprise.

    They believe that what they have just engaged with and signed with the Government is immutable or at least will be so for the duration of their lifetime that they will spend with whatever it is that the government and they have agreed [ temporarily! ] on.

    As for claims that there is a binding contract between a corporation or an individual with a government to continue to subsidise and failure of the government to continue these subsidies regardless is a breach of contract on the part of the government, well there are at least two let outs for governments on this.

    Neither of them will have been incorporated into the contracts between the government and the solar panel turbine owner / operators agreement so the government is free as a government to impose further conditions on the suppliers of power from solar and wind and etc.
    .
    a / The provider of the [ solar ? ] energy will be required to meet a mandated output of electrical power from his / her installation in accordance with the size of the solar panel set up as claimed by the operator and subsequently subsidised by the government at the time of the agreement so as to be eligible for the full subsidy.
    Failure to provide the claimed amount and output of power in line with the contract’s numbers ie solar panel size and output, on which the subsidy is paid means the subsidy will adjusted downwards accordingly.

    Something similar to the above appears to be one of the requirements in the RET that the wind and solar farms will have to meet which is the reason why some of them are having to install batteries and / or arrange back up power supplies to meet their claimed outputs on which they have been subsidised in the past.

    No doubt an arrangement that will be extended to household solar systems in a bid to get the domestically installed solar sytems and their outputs under control and as a means of providing a much more stable output of power in the grid.
    [ The mind boggles! Dozens of engine powered generators running through the nights in the city and for much of the day in the winter gloom as the solar owners try to keep their subsidies.]
    .
    b / To access the grid and all its facilities of control and distrubution and to be eligible to supply power to the grid and get paid for that power, a commercial arrangement in every meaning of the word, and to also be eligible to draw back power from the grid, a very substantial grid maintenance and service cost will be imposed which remarkably will probably be very close to the subsidy being paid to the owner / operator of the domestic solar panel owners .
    .
    Spain after running into massive subsidy losses and serious government deficits a few years ago because of the too generous subsidies to renewable energy, I think has now got an mandatory requirement on the part of turbine and solar farm operators that they give the grid operators a forecast of the number of units of power they will be able to supply some 24 hours ahead.

    The turbine and solar farm operators are allowed a ten percent variation either side of their nominated and forecast number of power units they will provide in the next period .
    Failure to provide that power within those allowed 10 % variations either side of the predicted output of power, there are heavy penalties imposed on the supplier of power involved.

    50

    • #
      Another Ian

      ROM

      “What the government giveth, the government can and will also take away!”

      Baxter Black’s variation “The big print giveth and the small print taketh away”

      40

  • #
    pat

    re poles and wires.
    still no figure for what percentage relates to upgrading to handle solar & wind energy?

    both behind paywalls – perhaps someone can excerpt:

    Malcolm Turnbull open to ACCC call for taxpayers to underwrite new power plants
    The Australian Financial Review-12 hours ago
    https://www.afr.com/news/malcolm-turnbull-open-to-accc-call-for-taxpayers-to-underwrite-new-power-plants-20180711-h12jec

    ACCC report doesn’t justify the building of new coal-fired power stations: Mark Butler
    The Australian-2 hours ago
    “What Rod Sims and the ACCC have wisely said is that there might be a case for the government essentially to underwrite confidence in some new entrants

    10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Joule Joker Josh isn’t quoted in that article, pat, but I found the statements by Frydenberg in Nine’s article this morning to be even more damning. Not exactly a surprise that the Faeryfax piece doesn’t have the killer quotes.

      Jo, a couple of quotes in this article might be useful if you are planning on launching your own volley later in the week.
      https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/07/12/08/03/govt-open-to-underwriting-new-power-plants

      Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg, said the recommendation in the ACCC report “has merit”, after the Prime Minister also left the door open.
      Mr Frydenberg told the TODAY Show that underwriting new sources of power “certainly could include coal and gas”. But also renewables, the minister said.
      “The ACCC doesn’t specify what type of technology it should support,” Mr Frydenberg said.

      Yep, the Lib/Nat government are going to continue feeding the industry the poison that lead to high prices – the ruinable renewable energy target subsidy.

      Malcolm Turnbull told ABC radio this morning “you’ve got to be technology neutral”.
      “Only a technology neutral approach will get power prices down,” the prime minister said.
      “We’re not advocating one technology or another.”

      Actually, Mal, you are advocating for the technology you are still subsidising.

      “What the ACCC has identified is a market failure that new generation assets can’t be built because the companies that want to build them can’t get the finance from the banks,” the minister said.

      A market failure‽ A market is not capable of imposing the subsidies that have shuttered coal plants.

      “And one of the reasons that can’t get the finance is they can’t secure agreements with the energy users for long-term.
      “So, what they’re saying is the government needs to step in here and provide some sort of surety.”

      He cannot be suggesting here that within a few years retailers might stop buying electricity. He surely also cannot be suggesting that some cheaper alternative is about to appear out of nowhere. Unless Lockheed’s small scale fusion reactor is closer to commercial production and regulatory approval than I thought, there is no power source on Australia’s horizon, nor even on our over-the-horizon radar, that could hold a proverbial candle to coal and gas for reliable large scale power supply. You all know this.

      So the only visible and frankly admitted reason the coal and gas companies might have difficulty getting all their future power sold is if they are undercut in the NEM bids by subsidised renewables. But here is Joule Joker Josh adamant that the solution for too much subsidy is to impose even more subsidies.

      So he’s going to lower your “power bill” by shifting some of the cost into your annual tax bill where it is less visible. You’ll pay twice for your power. Once on your quarterly power bill to actually generate and deliver it from the coal/gas plant, and again every August to keep their bidding price as low as the subsidised renewables. Taking all the subsidies away from all generators would also restore the reliable power situation we used to have as well as leaving you hundreds of dollars per year better off.
      Anyone want to have a guess as to why that eminently “technology neutral” option does not seem to be politically viable at the present?

      40

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        (The only way I can get replies these days is replying to myself.)

        I’ve noticed that Nine News article has been updated with more quotes that I don’t remember it having at 12:45 when I first commented. It now includes government “nosiness” and a debate with “knuckle-dragging cave dwellers”!

        More grist for Jo’s mill.

        40

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Ironically, if Shortonideas represents the Left, his approach kills off a lot of manufacturing, blue collar jobs, traditionally a strong left-wing support base.

          10

  • #
    pat

    Terry McCrann: Walking away from Paris Accord only way to cut power bills
    Herald Sun – 16 hours ago

    spot the difference in the headlines for the same AAP article:

    Government considers ***renewable power support after damning report – Matt Coughlan, AAP
    The New Daily · 2 hours ago

    12 Jul: news.com.au: Govt mulls supporting ***new power generation
    Matt Coughlan, AAP
    Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has signalled the coalition government could financially back new power generation as part of a suite of measures to tackle skyrocketing power costs…
    Mr Frydenberg said the competition watchdog had identified a failure in the market but stressed the ACCC’s report had not favoured any particular technology.
    “What they’re saying is the government needs to step in here provide some sort of assurance,” Mr Frydenberg told the Nine Network on Thursday.
    “This is something that does have a lot of merit and we’ll consider it.”

    Some Nationals and Liberals have claimed the recommendation is vindication for their push to build new coal-fired power plants.
    But Mr Frydenberg said it could include coal, gas, renewable energy or battery storage.
    Labor’s energy spokesman Mark Butler said there was no appetite in the business community to invest in new coal-fired power generation, with or without government support.
    “The coal ideologues in the coalition partyroom have effectively hijacked what is quite an important and serious recommendation,” Mr Butler told ABC radio.

    Deputy Nationals leader Bridget McKenzie said science should determine which technology would get the best outcomes for power bills.
    “We have to walk away from the evangelical attachment to one particular fuel source for power generation over another,” Senator McKenzie told Sky News.
    https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/govt-mulls-supporting-new-power-generation/news-story/04d3c96b84ca301a378339879ed48e5b

    10

  • #
    pat

    12 Jul: 9News: Govt weighing up support for power assets including coal
    By Lane Calcutt
    The Turnbull Cabinet will “carefully consider” taxpayers supporting new power assets, including coal and gas plants, in the wake of the damning consumer watchdog review into prices.
    Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg, said the recommendation in the ACCC report “has merit”, after the Prime Minister also left the door open.
    Mr Frydenberg told the TODAY Show that underwriting new sources of power “certainly could include coal and gas”.

    ***But also renewables, the minister said…

    “The ACCC doesn’t specify what type of technology it should support,” Mr Frydenberg said.
    “The focus is the outcomes. Namely lower prices, and a more stable system.
    “This is certainly an important recommendation and one that certainly has merit too.”

    Malcolm Turnbull told ABC radio this morning “you’ve got to be technology neutral”.
    “Only a technology neutral approach will get power prices down,” the prime minister said.
    “We’re not advocating one technology or another.”…

    The recommendation was immediately seized upon by Coalition MPs, pushing for more coal and gas-fired power stations as vindication for their push back against the government’s energy policy, the National Energy Guarantee…

    But, as Mr Frydenberg pointed out, it doesn’t specify one form of generation.
    “What the ACCC has identified is a market failure that new generation assets can’t be built because the companies that want to build them can’t get the finance from the banks,” the minister said.
    “And one of the reasons that can’t get the finance is they can’t secure agreements with the energy users for long-term.
    “So, what they’re saying is the government needs to step in here and provide some sort of surety.”…
    https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/07/12/08/03/govt-open-to-underwriting-new-power-plants

    20

  • #
    pat

    Updated 12 Jul: AFR: ACCC invites a Forrest of power disruption
    by Matthew Stevens
    One of the 56 recommendations that arrived with the ACCC’s review of Australia’s retail power market is that Australian governments should effectively underwrite the long-tail risk of investment in generation capacity installed by owners other than incumbent operators.
    The idea is that government would sign agreements to buy energy from projects built by new arrivals. The deals would be cut at comparatively low prices, with the ACCC nominating $45-$50 per megawatt hour.

    Importantly, the security blanket the government contracts offer new projects could be exercised only after an initial bank of commercial and industrial supply contracts mature without being replaced. The period of protection suggested by the ACCC would start after year five of any project and run through to year 15.
    “This will encourage new entry, promote competition and to enable C&I (commercial and industrial) customers to access low-cost new generation. The program should operate for at least a four-year period, with support provided for qualifying projects,” the ACCC report sai

    The underwriting would be exclusive to new or marginal participants in any defined national energy market region. To secure support, a project must be big enough to supply multiple large customers and the application for underwriting would have to arrive with at least three firm customer contracts of at least five years.

    There are three standout reasons why this initiative will resound musically with potential energy market disruptors…

    Just finally, Sims responded with some passion to the idea that the ACCC’s latest review served proof of the failure of privatisation.
    “The network companies, the owners of poles and wires, the companies who most exploited the rules were Queensland and NSW government-owned network companies,” Sims snapped. “The private sector ones did not exploit the rules as much and they operate a hell of a lot more efficiently than the public sector ones. There is no doubt that privatisation has worked with poles and wires.”…READ ON
    https://www.afr.com/business/accc-invites-a-forrest-of-power-disruption-20180711-h12k1t

    20

  • #
    el gordo

    The ginger group is hunkered down and planning strategy, looking for justification.

    ‘Labor’s Mark Butler says he does not believe the ACCC’s energy report justifies the building of new coal-fired power stations.’ Oz

    20

  • #
    pat

    managed to access this:

    Updated 12 Jul: AFR: Malcolm Turnbull open to ACCC call for taxpayers to underwrite new power plants
    by Andrew Tillett, Mark Ludlow
    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has left the door open to taxpayers supporting the construction of new coal-fired power generation, settling a fractious backbench but potentially jeopardising bipartisan support from the states for the National Energy Guarantee.

    Mr Turnbull signalled his backing for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s key recommendation that Canberra help underwrite the cost of new dispatchable electricity generation, as fossil fuel advocates seized on the proposal to justify their case for further investment in coal-fired power stations.
    Investors were spooked by the ACCC’s scathing investigation, wiping almost $1.7 billion off the combined market value of AGL Energy and Origin Energy, two of the “big three” integrated generator-retailers expected to be most affected by its 56 recommendations…

    With a number of Coalition backbenchers, including former prime minister Tony Abbott, demanding up to $5 billion in taxpayer support for coal-fired power as part of the National Energy Guarantee, Mr Turnbull refused to rule in or out investing in coal, saying the focus should be on achieving outcomes, irrespective of ideology or technology.
    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,” he said.

    But Resources Minister Matt Canavan, a coal supporter, welcomed the recommendation.
    “The ACCC has recommended the government underwrite baseload power investments. Once again common sense of the Nationals is vindicated,” he said on Twitter.
    NSW Liberal MP Craig Kelly, who chairs the backbench environment and energy committee, said the ACCC’s recommendation would support construction of new baseload coal-fired power generation and it should be immediately incorporated in the NEG.
    “Unless the government underwrites it to negate political risk [of further policy uncertainty], you are not going to get that investment the market needs,” he said…

    The Minerals Council of Australia said the ACCC had recognised the impact on wholesale energy prices caused by the closure of older and larger power stations.
    “Secure power supply agreements would enhance the opportunity for private sector financing of a new coal or gas plant in Australia capable of delivering least-cost power 24/7,” chief executive Tania Constable said.
    But the recommendation met a cool response from Labor states, any one of which can veto the NEG.
    Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio called on the Turnbull government to immediately clarify whether any guarantee would extend to coal-fired power.
    “I think the federal government has to explain how they would entertain any proposal coming to them that are heavy on carbon emissions and justifying the additional costs that come from heavy emitting technologies,” she told The Australian Financial Review…

    ACT Climate Change Minister Shane Rattenbury, a Greens MP, said the report made clear the government’s “obsession” with coal and hostility to renewables had hurt consumers…
    Federal opposition energy spokesman Mark Butler said the ACCC’s recommendations risked being lost in the “fog of the civil war” within the Coalition over coal…
    https://www.afr.com/news/malcolm-turnbull-open-to-accc-call-for-taxpayers-to-underwrite-new-power-plants-20180711-h12jec

    10

  • #

    Man, I think I’m actually starting to feel a little confident.

    Give me an hour or two in front of a Senate Committee, and this whole thing would just collapse.

    You might think it’s a useless exercise, because hey, these are Senators. They know how to …senate! so it would all go so far over their heads, and lucky that place has high ceilings.

    However, the place would be full of journalists and every one them will be itching to write about it, because I would have given them a few, a hundred, many hundreds, thousands of ….. Gotcha’s.

    They’ll all rush out and check, only to find I was right, and they’ll be so eager for a scoop, they’ll rush to publish, and (some of) the truth will get out there.

    Naah! Dream on Tony. Fat chance of that ever happening.

    Tony.

    120

    • #
      PeterS

      I think you are dreaming but I do hope you are right. Time will tell if something drastic happens to bring back common sense in this nation or we continue as usual to go over the cliff thanks to the LNP and ALP working closely together to destroy our economy by effectively placing a ban on the bolstering of any existing or the building of any new coal fired power stations, effectively at the behest of the voting public.

      40

      • #
        el gordo

        Cory is quiet.

        The ginger group is composed of Liberals and Nats, more particularly the latter. They are discussing the word ‘firm’ as opposed to intermittent and they will cross the floor if the NEG has no Hele factored in.

        20

        • #
          PeterS

          The NEG is meant to be technology agnostic so HELE, gas, renewables, nuclear, etc. should not be in the details. All it should do is provide a level playing field so that the best and most affordable base load power generation system wins, which of course is coal. If HELE is mentioned explicitly you can bet your bottom dollar that ALP and the Greens will not support it. It would surprise me to see Turnbull will do that to sabotage it.

          20

          • #
            PeterS

            Perhaps I should have said it would not surprise me if Turnbull did that to sabotage the NEG given his past performances.

            20

            • #
              wal1957

              If they are talking about providing base load power, unreliables haven’t got a chance. Fossil fuel generators can tell the retailers that they can supply
              X amount of power…next week, next month etc. Unreliables…?

              40

              • #
                el gordo

                The ACCC mentioned the word ‘firm’ and surely that means coal, but Turnbull will keep it under his hat until after Super Saturday.

                He’s a dill if he thinks we are going to be sitting around talking about promised tax cuts, the electorate want to discuss energy and immigration.

                30

              • #
                PeterS

                If the NEG has even a whiff of base load coal power the ALP and Greens will block it and we still end up going over the cliff. If it’s carefully worded and it’s a real level playing field they could expose the ALP and Greens as anti-Australian and help the LNP win the next election with the promise to introduce the NEG on a mandate, much like what Howard did with the GST. Then the more competitive coal fired power stations finally can be built and the existing renewables end up being white elephants and no one would be silly enough to build more wind or solar farms as they won’t be able to compete with coal. If only Turnbull was that clever.

                20

              • #
                el gordo

                Sounds reasonable, the ACCC has given Turnbull a way out of this dilemma, but I’m not sure if he will take political advantage. Realpolitik over discredited ideology.

                10

    • #
      Chad

      Tony, you are right,…the chances of getting that oportunity to reach the press/public is not going to happen that way.
      Our audience here is limited and mostly consists of those who do not need to be told.
      In order to reach a wider public audience ..and government influential contacts, i fear our best possibility is through the popular Radio Media wherestations like 2GB have simpathetic jurnos, a big public following, AND constant contacts with government departments who they like to ask akward quetions .
      Energy is a hot topic on those radio stations currently.

      30

      • #
        PeterS

        The NEG can fix that if worded properly. Let’s wait and see the details. This is a golden opportunity for the LNP to expose the ALP and Greens as acting against the Australian people and the well being of the nation big time, almost to the point of being classified as an extremist t……st group. If the voters still don’t wake up and get the message then Australia deserves the ALP+Greens to win the next election so it can learn it the hard way.

        00

  • #
    pat

    apparently Shorten was on Sky News, spruiking “renewables”, but admitted -

    Shorten admits he hasn’t read the ACCC energy report
    The Australian-12 minutes ago
    Bill Shorten has admitted he has not yet read the ACCC’s energy industry … Resources Minister Matt Canavan hit out at Mr Butler and Labor for…

    Canavan not at his best:

    AUDIO: 11mins22secs: 12 Jul: 2GB: ‘Our focus is laser-like’: Resources Minister promises power prices are coming down
    Resources Minister Matt Canavan tells Michael McClaren there’s no reason Australia can’t prosper with the resources we have.
    “One of the reasons we’re in this mess Michael is because we’re not using our resources, we export them to the rest of the world.
    “We’ve got this crazy situation now where electricity prices are lower in the markets that we export our coal, gas and our uranium to.”

    Senator Canavan believes the government is making headway with its energy policies.
    “Our focus is laser-like on getting power bills down.
    “That is why, as Resources Minister last year, I put in place regulations that control exports of gas. That has helped bring down gas prices by 25%.”
    https://www.2gb.com/our-focus-is-laser-like-resources-minister-promises-power-prices-are-coming-down/

    20

    • #
      PeterS

      His focus may be laser-like but the details and his excuses are as weak as water. Matt Canavan is still a hypocrite just like the rest of the LNP. The only way he can change that is to announce in the NEG that all subsidies and support for renewables cease, and the RET scheme is scraped. Anything less is a complete snow job.

      40

      • #
        el gordo

        Canavan is more Liberal than National.

        10

        • #
          PeterS

          He is a big advocate of coal fired power but he has to toe the Turnbull anti-coal line. That’s what I mean by being a hypocrite. The rest are no better. I look forward to your so called ginger group revolt. I’ll believe it when I see it. Until then all I can hear is the sound of chickens and see a lot of chicken feathers blowing around.

          30

  • #
    John Watt

    Judging from the above comments it would appear the one good place to put solar in Qld is at the end of the very lossy (40%) lines that supply our edge-of grid customers. Since Bjelke-Petersen days South East Queenslanders have been subsidising our country cousins electricity costs. With the advent of the solar panel there is now a way to do cost-effective remote area generation (of course it needs diesel back-up and a battery) but it is still cheaper than prolonging the use of long lossy lines.

    11

    • #
      PeterS

      Snowy 2.0 is also lossy for different reasons yet it is still being taken seriously by the government. I think this country has caught some kind of mental disorder that effects the thinking of so many people (politicians and voters) who believe renewables is the only viable means to generate power.

      20

  • #
    J.H.

    The Solar scam is becoming obvious to all… Or too shameless to hide anymore. The Wheels really must be starting to come off when the ACCC start criticizing it.

    Anyway get well soon Jo. Can’t have our heroes getting sick.

    42

  • #
    pat

    11 Jul: WUWT: Ooops: “lid blown off” the trustworthiness of scientific peer review
    by Anthony Watts
    Stanford University medical professor John Ioannidis, in an interview with Agence France Presse (AFP), blew the lid off the trustworthiness of the peer-review process…READ ON
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/11/ooops-lid-blown-off-the-trustworthiness-of-scientific-peer-review/

    10 Jul: Boston Globe: Harvard study finds that during heat waves, people can’t think straight
    By Martin Finucane
    Harvard researchers say that they studied students in dorms with and without air conditioning and during a heat wave. They found that the students suffering through the heat performed worse on a series of cognitive tests.
    The researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health published their results Tuesday in the journal PLOS Medicine…

    Researchers studied 44 students in Boston in their late teens and early 20s. Twenty-four lived in air-conditioned buildings. The other 20 lived in buildings that did not have air conditioning.
    The study was conducted over a 12-day period in the summer of 2016. The first five days temperatures were seasonable, then came a five-day heat wave, then a two-day cooldown, the researchers said. The researchers did not release the names of the buildings or the institutions the students attended…

    During the cooldown period after the heat wave, the differences continued, the researchers said, warning that the effects of a heat wave linger in buildings — and American adults spend 90 percent of their time indoors.
    “Indoor temperatures often continue to rise even after outdoor temperatures subside, giving the false impression that the hazard has passed, when in fact the ‘indoor heat wave’ continues,” Joseph Allen, co-director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment at the Chan School…
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/07/10/harvard-study-finds-that-during-heat-waves-people-can-think-straight/WIVBzXPuiB0vVfm6DkVBcJ/story.html

    10 Jul: PLOS Medicine: Reduced cognitive function during a heat wave among residents of non-air-conditioned buildings: An observational study of young adults in the summer of 2016
    Funding: This study was funded by Harvard University Climate Change Solutions Fund established by President Drew Gilpin Faust and distributed by the Harvard University Office of the Provost (https://vpr.harvard.edu/internal-funding-opportunities-1). JGCL was awarded this funding to support the field study and research equipment…
    http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002605

    00

  • #
    pat

    9 Jul: Politico: Al Gore warns Germany losing climate edge
    Former US vice president says Berlin could come back on top if it adopts more progressive policies, especially in transport.
    By Matthew Karnitschnig
    BERLIN — Al Gore said Germany is losing its status as one of the global leaders in combatting climate change as the country continues to depend on burning coal for its energy production…
    The former U.S. vice president, who has become one of the world’s leading campaigners against global warming since leaving office, was in Germany to help train climate change activists…

    Gore said Germany’s backsliding, particularly on coal, means that other countries — including the Netherlands, France and the Scandinavian nations — are racing ahead of it.
    “Germany is in danger of being left behind as more aggressive EU governments seize the lead,” he said. “The competitive advantages and job creation advantages of the sustainability revolution put Germany at risk of being left behind. Of course, the subsidies for coal in Germany are enormous.”…
    https://www.politico.eu/article/al-gore-angela-merkel-climate-warns-germany-losing-climate-edge/

    21

    • #
      ROM

      .
      For gross hypocrisy laid on in very large amounts with a very large political trowel, Gore would have to be an archetypal example.

      51

    • #
      Hanrahan

      Al Gore warns Germany losing climate edge

      He says that as if it is a bad thing. :)

      40

  • #
    pat

    11 Jul: Bloomberg: Oil and Gas Companies Will Lead the Energy Revolution
    by John Browne
    When it comes to climate change, I have always been a believer: not in hand-wringing debate, not in unrealistic solutions like the elimination of hydrocarbons, but in the power of action. In 1997, as chief executive of BP, I was the first leader of a major oil company to acknowledge that climate change was a problem, and that the industry had a responsibility to acknowledge and address it. The head of the American Petroleum Institute claimed that I had “left the church.”

    Twenty-one years later, I returned to the church in a different way, along with a group of distinguished business leaders. Last month, Pope Francis hosted the chief executives of many of the biggest oil and gas companies, investors overseeing nearly $10 trillion of capital and many of the energy sector’s leading thinkers and policy makers. We convened to discuss ways of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and methane.
    This is the first time in my 50-year career in the energy industry that such a gathering has taken place. The discussion was marked by humility and pragmatic optimism…

    In areas such as aviation, maritime and heavy commercial shipping, there are no viable substitutes for oil. Natural gas has a long life ahead, as it replaces coal in the power sector, and provides a reliable complement to the intermittency of renewables. Based on current trends, IHS Markit expects total demand for oil and gas to rise by 30 percent between now and 2040. Consumption of renewable energy is expected to triple, but from a lower base: By 2040, it will account for just 6 percent of the energy mix, roughly the same as nuclear power today…

    To transform the pace and scale of investment, I have long advocated for a global price on carbon, most likely in the form of a consumption tax. This levy would need to be high enough to encourage the shift toward lower carbon energy sources on the supply side, and to drive adoption and improvement of efficiency measures on the demand side. So far, no pricing proposal has been able to achieve those goals. Implementation of a carbon tax without exemptions, and with measures to penalize countries that do not comply, will require courage and determination to face down vested interests…

    The meeting at the Vatican last month reaffirmed my conviction that we now have the tools to solve this pressing and complex global puzzle. The decisions we make about energy in the years ahead are among the most profoundly consequential we will face. To cite Pope Francis: “Civilization requires energy, but energy use must not destroy civilization.”
    https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/2018/07/11/oil-and-gas-giants-have-the-tools-to-lead-the-energy-revolution

    00

  • #
    ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

    When did the ACCC ask what value non-solar customers were getting from this deal?

    I may be wrong, but I believe a similar thing happened in Germany a generation ago. That’s just typical of our loony Lefties, jump right in before checking the depth. Time to send them a bill of the difference they’ve caused. Maybe that’ll knock it on the head quicker.

    40

    • #
      PeterS

      Sending them the bill would be too kind. Big leading advocates of the renewables business to save the planet from a mythical an-made global warming catastrophe and have made boig bucks out of it should end up in prison for life. That’s what has already happened to scam artists of far lesser degree.

      30

    • #
      Dave

      A subsidy received for an installation of Solar or Battery
      Should incur TAX same as income!

      Time to step up to oppose this give away to tax cheats!

      10

  • #
    Dennis

    Thought for the day …
    Is Chairman Mal dispatchable?

    70

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    Solar is electrically disruptive to the grid and economically destructive to everyone.

    Solar should only be allowed if it is privately installed without subsidies and is a complete stand alone system with batteries and generator and no grid connection.

    72

    • #
      PeterS

      That might be the way it will become even without regulation with only the rich being able to afford off grid solar. The rest of us will be left with a broken system worse than any third world nation if things do not turn around soon and play catch-up with the rest of the world where hundreds of coal fired power stations are being built and will continue to be built for the forseable future.

      30

    • #
      ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

      1. Purchase entire system without subsidies.
      2. Get rebate for what they generate to the grid if connected.
      3. Get penalised for their input disruption if connected, either monetarily pro-rata or cut off entirely until the disruption ceases (night).
      4. Exercise machines to be generators, not motorised!

      10

    • #
      Hanrahan

      You can be anti-war but if the mongols ride on your village you must grab a sword and shield to defend yourself. Similarly you can be anti-renewables but as the price rises you may have to go solar to defend yourself. Don’t blame the meat in the sandwich.

      20

  • #
    Another Ian

    Now how did that happen?

    “CO2 Emissions Lowest in Seven Decades In Trump’s America”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/12/co2-emissions-lowest-in-seven-decades-in-trumps-america/

    (/s for those that need it)

    10

  • #
    yarpos

    Our local council is promoting an energy bulk buy scheme. In their wisdom its not bulk buying of grid power (lowering the costs for all), its bulk buying of solar systems. Feeding the machine.

    30

    • #
      Annie

      ‘Discuss your solar needs with Yarra Energy Foundation’
      …..
      ‘Hear from the Yarra Energy Foundation and Jim’s Energy’
      …..
      ‘Check out the Tesla Electric Car on display’

      ‘Attend a free solar seminar:’ etc.

      Looking up the board members of the YEF is an interesting exercise. Looking up the nearest Jim’s Energy is also interesting!

      10

  • #
    toorightmate

    Jo,
    A foolproof remedy for your ailment.
    One bottle of Bundaberg Rum tonight and your troubles are behind you.

    01

  • #

    [...] of warming hysteria and the war on CO2. The ACCC has discovered, late in the day, that the rooftop solar subsidy scheme transfers wealth from poor to rich. Can you bear [...]

    00

  • #
    pat

    double speak:

    12 Jul: SMH: ACCC rejects coal-fired power support claims
    By Eryk Bagshaw
    Competition chief Rod Sims has dismissed suggestions a landmark energy report he issued on Wednesday backed government support for coal, as Coalition figures used the claim to push public subsidies for a new coal-fired power plant to solve Australia’s energy crisis.
    Nationals MPs latched onto a key recommendation that new “firm” generation capacity be underwritten by the government to support new entrants by giving them a long-term guarantee that Canberra would buy electricity to help them secure finance.

    “It is technology neutral and if you are interested in affordability best to stay that way,” Mr Sims said. “It’s not targeted at baseload power and it’s not targeted at coal.”

    He pointed to the report’s focus on “firm” delivery through gas and a renewable mix, with the government effectively acting as a guarantor on a bank loan rather than a permanent public subsidy…

    Mr Sims added that even a few extra projects could deliver energy price cuts worth up to $750 a year for consumers depending on where they live.
    “From a sustainability point of view those issues are all being played out. You don’t have to subsidise renewable energy any more, it’s a level playing field,” he said…

    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has given in principle backing to many of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recommendations.
    He noted its findings were technology neutral despite cabinet colleagues – including Resources Minister Matthew Canavan – claiming the report as an endorsement of baseload power, widely seen as coal.
    “I would say to you there’s a lot of debate about this policy and that policy and this technology and that technology is all extremely important and interesting but the test, the only test, is will it reduce energy prices?,” Mr Turnbull said.
    “We are not in the business of subsidising one technology or another. We’ve done enough of that, frankly, too much of that has been done.”…

    “We’ve go to maintain reliability, that goes without saying,” he said. “So you’ve got to be able, when you flick the switch, the lights have got to come on and stay on. But also you’ve got to be able to afford to keep them on.”…
    “Going forward, the subsidies should come to an end and they’re winding down, including the Renewable Energy Target, and we should simply allow the technologies to compete,” Mr Turnbull said.

    Labor leader Bill Shorten said he would not support any underwriting of coal-fired power stations on Thursday and called on the government to funnel funding into renewable energy.

    The Coalition remains hopeful the 400-page ACCC report will stymie calls from within its own backbench for a royal commission into the energy sector.

    Power prices for households and businesses have increased ***in real terms by more than 35 per cent over the past decade.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/accc-rejects-coal-fired-power-support-claims-20180712-p4zr5z.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    Only a royal commission can bring power companies to heel
    Daily Telegraph · 1 hour ago
    THE cruel tactics energy companies use to extract money from the most vulnerable members of our society have now been exposed…

    10

  • #
    ROM

    There should be a number of Jo’s denizens here who are reasonably familiar with the term EROI.

    In this instance EROI translates as “Energy Returned On Energy Invested”.
    Or what multiples of energy does one get from investing a quantity of energy into an energy generator. such as drilling for and refning oil or gas.

    The simplest and best article I could find after an hours search on the web, [ lots of articles on EROI but mostly too mind bending ] was from Euan Mearns and Roger Andrew site “Energy Matters”, a site that is included in my regular daily runaround on various sites.

    The relevant article here is “ERoEI for Beginners”

    Quoted;

    The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy gathering system is a measure of that system’s efficiency. The concept was originally derived in ecology and has been transferred to analyse human industrial society.
    In today’s energy mix, hydroelectric power ± nuclear power have values > 50. At the other end of the scale, solar PV and biofuels have values 5 to 7 is required for modern society to function.

    This marks the edge of The Net Energy Cliff and it is clear that new Green technologies designed to save humanity from CO2 may kill humanity through energy starvation instead. Fossil fuels remain comfortably away from the cliff edge but march closer to it for every year that passes.
    I first came across the concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) several years ago in Richard Heinberg’s book The Party’s Over [1]. I had never contemplated the concept before and I was immediately struck by its importance. If we used more energy to get the energy we need to survive then we will surely perish.

    ;

    Note a couple of very important points here that Euan Mearn raises.

    Our civilisation needs a return in energy , an EROI of a minimum of around 5 to 7 times the amount of energy we put into a potential energy source before there is a sufficient surplus of energy over and above the requirements to run that energy source thereby creating an energy surplus which can then be used for all those other items that go to make up a civilisation and becomes capable of creating even a modicum of civilised living.

    A EROI of 1. [ one ] simply means that ALL of the energy gained from an energy source is used to create and run that energy source with nothing at all left over to provide any surplus energy to meet any other requirement.

    An EROI of a hundred [ >100 ] as is claimed for a few hydroelectric sources of energy means that the energy for the building of the dam originally and its maintenance over time is so low compared to its output of energy that huge amounts of energy have become available to create so much more and to build a highly complex and sophisticated society and civilisation.

    There is a great deal of disagreement as to how the EROI of a particular energy source is calculated.
    But generally an attempt is made to go right back to the mining and treatment of the ores to build the energy source’s infrastructure and to carry those calculations right through to the point where the energy is actually available and used by humanity.

    Be very wary when checking other sources for ERIO’s as almost universally the Renewable Energy advocates [ deliberately ? ] leave out the intermittent production of energy from renewable sources and therefore the low EROI of the essential backup systems which should be included as an intergral part of the energy production system [ due to the requirement to run and stop and run and etc as the renewable energy systems chaotically crash up and down the energy production spectrum] thereby giving a very false set of moderate at best EROI numbers for Solar in particular and Wind in general.

    There is also an ease of exploitation bias in these EROI numbers as the early discoveries of oil and gas were so rich that the amount of energy required to exploit them was very low thereby giving a very high EROI [ Energy Returned On Energy invested ] for these sources of energy in the first part of the 20th century
    ————–

    A few EROI numbers for the current sources of our energy from a table in Euan Mearns post;

    Oil & Gas production; global 2006 ; EROI = 18

    Natural Gas 2005 USA ; EROI = 67
    .

    [ both of the EROI's for oil and gas will have increased substantially as these EROI's quoted are for the pre-fraking period when reserves of oil and gas were thought to be running down and ever deeper drilling requiring ever more. energy in pipes and infrastructure was needed to find and exploit new oil fields..

    To recover Oil and Gas once again is now using far less energy due to frakking than was the case in 2011 when these figures were first published. ]
    .

    Coal at the mine mouth ; EROI = USA = 60 > 80. China = 27

    Nuclear ; EROI = 5 >15

    Hydro ; EROI = >100

    Wind turbine ; EROI = 18

    [ this number does NOT cater for the intermittency and unpredictability of wind energy by including the EROI of the forcibly intermittent back up systems to fill the energy hole when wind fails to produce any or enough power.]
    .
    Solar photovoltaic ; EROI = 6 >12 [ comment as above and note Mearns comment above that Solar PV and wind are less an EROI value of less than 5 when the back up systems are included.
    .

    Which means that more energy goes into creating and building the solar PV panels than will ever be got as energy from running them as a power source.
    .
    And note also, the minimum requirement for a power source to be of use in generating a surplus of energy to be used in other facets of our civilisation requires an EROI of 5 to 7 .
    .
    So Solar doesn’t cut it as a viable power source for an advancing civilidsation no matter how it is displayed.
    ——————
    .
    A further Energy Matters blog article on Solar PV EROI’s is The Energy Return of Solar PV

    Solar PV’s EROI’s in this case and according to these comutations, at the higher latitudes and therefore les sunlight comes out as around 0.83 which means it can never generate enough energy in its lifetime to replace the energy used in its manufacture.

    40

    • #
      Annie

      I look forward to reading this tomorrow ROM…too tired atm.

      10

    • #
      Hanrahan

      No mention of ethanol from sugar cane or corn. I suspect they are lower still than solar PV.

      20

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Hi ROM,

      An interesting way of looking at it and as you and the other comentators indicate, fraught with problems of definition.

      Starting at the mine mouth, for one, and resolving the intermittency and transmission problems of Renewables for another.

      Another parallel assessment could be carried out; it would be an interesting exercise to do a cost of provision of each energy source but this would need an accurate “working life” assessment for plant and equipment.

      Renewables would fall down on the “economy of scale” approach, but working life for windmills and Solar PV is poor and decommissioning costs are so atrocious that up till now, nobody has been game to mention it.

      I feel that, done properly, EROI should closely parallel real cost per unit of energy delivered.

      KK

      20

  • #
    Hanrahan

    Coal is free!!!!

    The alarmists insist that the wind, sun and water are “free”, we just have to harness them. Maybe they are, but so is coal. It matters nought whether you believe in God or the big bang but whoever/whatever gave us one, gave us them all. We don’t get a bill from on high, or even from the terrestial agents, the churches. From a strictly economic POV coal gives a far greater EROI as ROM says above.

    10

    • #
      ROM

      A small item but a rather interesting one.

      If we work backwards from a common unit of energy produced by each energy producing technology, lets keep to coal as a fossil fuel and say wind and solar as renewables, we also come across a few other characteristics that lead to major differences in the overall outcomes between fossil fuels and renewable energy.
      .

      Coal as can be seen in the tables in the Energy matters post has an EROI of anywhere between 27 in China to the 50′s and 60′s in the USA.
      Australia with its older less efficient coalfired generators and the use of the low quality Brown coal or Lignite as it is called elsewhere probably has a EROI for coal of maybe 25.
      .

      If emmissions are important to some persons, Coal fired generators emit a specific amount of CO2 per that common unit of power produced right through their lifetime of maybe 50 years.
      .

      Renewable energy be it Solar and /or Wind INCLUDING their back up systems, an absolute requirement if solar and wind are to be regarded as a genuine power generation systems, have EROI’s in the single figures inclusive of their back up systems, then for each of the common units of power produced, that unit being the same as coal’s unit of power above , then the amount of energy needed to create and build and operate the Renewable Solar and Wind generators to generate this similar unit of energy to that of the coalfired generators under a EROI analysis system, will be correspondenly and very significantly larger.
      .

      As more energy is used to create and build Renewable systems so as to generate a similar amount of end product energy as a coalfired generator, emmissions from the building of the Renewable energy systems will be very much higher for the production of the same end product energy unit produced than a coal fired generator producing the same amount of energy.
      .

      But as the man says! There’s More!

      To produce that common unit of energy, coal fired generators will also produce a specifc amount of emmissions over their entire lifetimes of say roughly 50 years.

      Renewable energy, solar and wind on the other hand with a far less efficient use of the input of energy compared to their output of end point energy than is the case witha coal fired generator , both use more input energy [ much lower EROI ] and consequently much greater emmissions [ as they use fossil fueled generators for that input energy ], but also, the totality of those emmissions are already in the atmosphere BEFORE the renewable energy systems ever begin to generate the end point energy unit.

      And those emmissions from the creation and building of the Renewable energy system are there right through the entire period of the life of the renewable energy system, unlike the coal fired generator which is only slowly adding to its emmissions over its entire 50 year approx life time as it produces that common unit of energy.

      In short , Renewable energy systems to produce the same end point useable amounts of energy as fossil fueled generators create a much higher emmissions load per unit of energy produced and those emmissions are there in the atmosphere before the renewables even begin to generate power and are in the atmosphere for the entire lifetime of the renewable energy system.

      Unlike a fossil fueled generator where the emissions, much less in amount due to a much higher EROI than renewables, are added slowly to the atmosphere over the half a century life time of the fossil fueled generators as it prroduces the same amounts of useable energy units as a renneweable energy systems of Solar and Wind.
      .
      This does seriously suggest that to produce the same amount of energy from renewable Solar and wind generating systems the over all emmissions must be and probably are very much higher than if only straight out coal and fossil fueled generators upgraded to HELE specifications had continued to be used here in Australia and world wide.
      .

      But then the politicals thought that solar and wind generators were a Good Idea at the Time even though they didn’t have single bloody clue as to any justification for their promotion of solar and wind renewable energy systems nor did they bother their tiny brain cells with actually taking on board the advice of a lot of knowledgeable people who already knew of the pitfalls and gross inefficiencies of Renewable energy in the form of Solar and wind..

      10

  • #
    Robber

    Our pathetic pollies and their responses to the ACCC report.
    Bill Shorten hasn’t read it but he’s against it.
    Mr Butler believes in renewable energy that is firmed up by a mix of batteries, perhaps pumped hydro and also gas-fired peaking generation.
    Mr Turnbull said that “Going forward the subsidies should come to an end, and they’re winding down, including the renewable energy target, and we should simply allow the technologies to compete, and what we want to have is the outcome of lower prices”. But when?

    And perhpas the only pollie with potential: Resources Minister Matt Canavan hit out at Mr Butler and Labor for their preference for renewable energy over coal. “If renewables are cheaper than coal they will win the race. The ACCC is right that all power sources should be on the table. Labor has just again deserted workers for the Greens. “According to @Mark_Butler_MP and the Labor Party it’s OK for the rest of the world to use our COAL but we can’t even consider using it ourselves.
    “Has there ever been more a STUPID energy policy?” Well, SA probably leads the way with the ACT, but other States aren’t far behind.

    00

  • #
    WXcycles

    “Solar is competitive if you give it a one third head start:”

    Of course even that doesn’t work, as:

    (1) 10 Kwhr is not realy enough for most families.

    (2) It needs at least 15 Kwhr batteries to go with them, which instantly makes it massively economically uncompetitive.

    (3) It can’t replace grid power, but does undermine it.

    (4) It can’t recapitalise its own full replacement cost, so it is not only uneconomic, it’s not ‘renewable’ power either—as it won’t be renewed as it ages and fails.

    So the subsidy hasn’t even helped the supposed intended economic “head-start”, it’s a dead net-loss over time, and a massive national waste, and will never produce affordable continuous mains power, and can never replace grid baseload.

    (5) It now threatens national security, as well.

    30