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

Turnbull to consider new Coal power in Australia (ten years too late)

Last week only fringe loonies who were clinging to a dead technology were calling for a coal revival (mock mock mock). But now that the ACCC has spent months investigating and 400 pages reporting, they discovered that Tony Abbott and Craig Kelly and the Monash group were, hey, all right all along.

This is Turnbulls get-out-of-jail card, if he used it as an excuse to be sensible. He has in the past taken those cards and set fire to them. In a best case, he might, with arm twisted in a one-spare-seat-government, “build new coal” sometime in the far distant future, but whatever he does he won’t do anything other than minor hand waving about the Crony Green-Theft runaway train profits.

Turnbull weighs coal fix for energy wars

Simon Benson and Ben Packham, The Australian

A proposal for the federal government to financially guarantee the construction and operation of new dispatchable power generation, which could include clean coal-fired plants, is expected to be taken to cabinet with the backing of the Prime Minister.

Malcolm Turnbull yesterday confirmed he would seriously consider the key recommendation of a report by the competition watchdog to underwrite and potentially subsidise new “firm” and cheap power generation for industrial and commercial users.

Signalling a possible end to the energy wars within the Coalition partyroom, the recommendation was immediately endorsed by ­Nationals MPs, who have interpreted it as a green light for government to intervene in supporting the future of coal generation.

h/t RobK

The government wouldn’t need to buy new coal plants if our market wasn’t so screwed in the first place. But it is screwed, so “OK”. Better would be for the government to get out of the market, stop trying to use our electricity grid as a Global Climate Controller, stop forcing consumers to buy green electrons, stop trying to pick-the-winners in the tech game, stop big energy groups from owning every kind of generator and game the bidding system, stop building transmission lines to Kalamazoo and stop employing green activists to run our national energy market.

No End to the Energy Wars

As for the idea that this “signals an end to the energy wars”… Not A Chance.

As long as customers are being forced to spend money on magical glass panels to stop droughts and save whales, or to subsidize windmills to hold back the tide and stop crocodiles, there will be no end to the energy wars. As long as Chinese Crypto miners can get electricity at a third of the price in Australia that Australian Newsagents can we know we still have a problem. Once the public realizes how fool politicians sold them out to the renewables industry with witchdoctor excuses, there will be hell to pay.

Still crook. H1N1.+ RSV icing.

See also:

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (76 votes cast)
Turnbull to consider new Coal power in Australia (ten years too late), 9.5 out of 10 based on 76 ratings

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

156 comments to Turnbull to consider new Coal power in Australia (ten years too late)

  • #

    WHY “CLIMATE CHANGE” SEEMS TO HAVE FADED FROM THE NEWS

    Anthony Watts
    July 13, 2018
    By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

    The failure of the atmosphere to warm in accordance with alarmist predictions is making it harder and harder to come up with a bona fide story that can scare you.

    In a post a few days ago, I noted that “the whole climate issue seems to have mostly disappeared from the news lately.” Commenter niceguyeddie responded by giving me a link to the Washington Post (eddie called it “the ‘other’ Pravda”), and an article of July 5 by a guy named Jason Samenow headlined “Red-hot planet: All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week.” In the intervening week since this article, a few people on the internet have been busy making mincemeat of Samenow’s rather pitiful effort. For MC readers who don’t go out searching the internet regularly for real information on climate to combat the propaganda from the various Pravdas out there, I thought I would do the public service of presenting some of this real information here.

    First, some basic background is needed to develop appropriate [snip] radar on this subject. If you follow climate or weather information even a little, you will already know that on any given day, somewhere in the world, some weather station, or more likely multiple stations, is recording an “all time high” temperature for the particular day in question, while some other weather station, or maybe multiple stations, is recording an “all time low.” It follows that the fact that multiple “all time high” records were set during the course of a week tells you nothing about climate change. There could have been even more all time lows, and the overall average could have gone down, no matter how many “all time highs” were recorded. Any reader of any intelligence whatsoever will immediately be asking, don’t just tell me about “all time highs,” but tell me what is the overall picture? How many all time lows were there? What is happening with the “average” temperature? You will not be surprised to learn that Samenow does not provide the answers to those questions. In other words, his article is not intended to provide useful information to the intelligent reader, but rather to propagandize those lacking in either basic background information or critical thinking ability or both.

    There is an obvious source for the answer to the last question as to what is happening with the “average,” and that is the easily-available UAH global lower troposphere record, derived from satellite sensors. That record exists from 1979 to present. Here is the latest chart from UAH going through the end of June 2018:

    graph

    So with that simple first step, we know that the “average” world temperature for June 2018 was +0.21 deg C above the 1981 – 2010 mean. That represented a decline of about 0.65 deg C from the all time high of this 39-year record, which was reached in early 2016. The 0.65 deg C decline represented more than 75% of the amount by which the average temperature had exceeded the 1981 – 2010 mean at the highest point. Suddenly the fact that some large number of “all time highs” was being set at the end of June does not seem very significant.

    But it’s still fun to look at what Samenow claims for his “all time highs,” to see how real they are, or whether we are dealing with more of the usual “fake news.” This gets pretty bad. […]

    As you can see, the failure of the atmosphere to warm in accordance with alarmist predictions is making it harder and harder to come up with a bona fide story that can scare you. They are reduced to cherry-picking some unrepresentative data points and leaving out all of the relevant context. It’s no wonder the reporting on this is becoming increasingly scarce. For you, the moral of the story is, if you want some real information as to whether the world is warming or cooling, and by how much, skip the propaganda at the various Pravdas, and go for the UAH lower troposphere satellite record. It is available in the form at the top of this post, at drroyspencer.com, updated monthly.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/13/why-climate-change-seems-to-have-faded-from-the-news/

    132

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Is there an election in the offing?

    172

    • #
      Geoff

      There can be no fix to our energy market that does include leaving The Paris Climate Change Agreement.

      Until the idea that CO2 is heating up the planet is a scam and those responsible are at worst ignored or best prosecuted for fraud, our energy system will continue to be driven to a point whereby industry that uses energy in a crucial process will leave or cease.

      Malcolm Turnbull is a media driven aberration. Fake on multiple levels.

      350

      • #
        shannon

        Malcolm Turnbull … “Fake on multiple levels.”

        Never a truer word spoken, Geoff….

        100

      • #
        Ian

        Like most you have no idea that we are in the Paris Agreement because Tony Abbott put us there. In 2015 he signed us up with s commitment to reduce Australia’s emissions by between 26% and 28% of 2005 levels by 2030. That commitment is in force till 2020. Why don’t you find out the facts before blaming Turnbull? This site is becoming indeed has become, an extension of The Australian and Andrew Bolt ad Peta Credlin and The Daily Telegraph in pandering to the rabid right wing ranters that like to think of themselves as Conservatives. Oh and I forgot to mention, Tony Abbott has recently said he didn’t understand what he was signing up for. What an admission from this failed ex PM

        218

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          On several previous posts I have asked you to demonstrate you scientific skill by summarizing the numerous “references” that you have said we should read.

          But, there has not been one word, not one, that outlines your understanding of other people’s claims.

          You claim to have a PhD but given your lack of sincerity and poor communication skills I now have serious doubts about that.

          Other comments you have made bear a remarkable resemblance to the style of comment previously seen on the site run by the University of Skeptical Science.

          I’m starting to think that maybe there is no PhD, just more social justice warrior venting.

          If you can’t even show enough courtesy to write a coherent scientific comment why should we give you any credibility.

          KK

          132

          • #
            Ian

            Here is a cogent scientific comment it comes in three parts..

            Should you wish to check my credentials which you doubt, please contact Jo Nova.. Several years ago I had some off site personal communications with her in which, as we both went to UWA, we exchanged some details of our studies as we were both in the same field.

            In our very first communications you made the claim that nowhere in the literature was there proof that humans caused global warming. I responded by saying nowhere in the literature was their proof that hun=mans didn’t cause global warming. You still have not addressed that issue.

            You also said “The concept of CAGW sits uncomfortably on the assertion that CO2 is in some way a “heat trapping gas. Basic physics refutes that concept.’

            I think you will find basic physics does nothing of the kind. Below is a reference to a publication from the American Physical Society. The URL is
            https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm.

            The opening sentence in the abstract is

            In this paper, we have used several basic atmospheric–physics models to show that additional carbon dioxide will warm the surface of Earth. We also show that observed solar variations cannot account for observed global temperature increase.”

            the concluding sentence is

            “Earth is getting warmer. Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.”

            In between the authors give the mathematical reasoning for their conclusion. No doubt you will be able to analyse these mathematical calculations and check that what hey conclude is correct.

            Perhaps as you believe basic physics shows CO2 is not a heat trapping gas you can write to these authors and explain why this is so. They no doubt will be delighted that someone has at last given en the physical mechanism that shows first that Co2 does not cause global warming and second your alternative mechanism for global warming.

            You seem to suggest I should debate points such as this at length. That would be totally inappropriate firstly as I am not a climate scientist and neither are you and secondly it would occupy far too much space on this site. However I have given you yet another reference for your attention and enlightenment.

            10

          • #
            Ian

            Apologies I accidentally presses send instead of preview, As part of discussing your claim that” basic physics shows CO2 is not a heat trapping gas” the reference below addresses this. It is from Scientific American is titled “Why CO2 is a greenhouse gas” and dissects and discusses claims from the Galileo Institute. The URL is https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/

            The opening paragraphs are:

            “The Australia-based Galileo Movement touts a series of “basic facts” on carbon dioxide that attempt to explain why the greenhouse gas can’t contribute to climate change. John Smeed, the movement’s co-founder, says the case against carbon dioxide as a global warming culprit is simply a matter of “junior school physics.”

            “If you show this to any scientist and say to them, ‘Disprove to me any of these points,’ they can’t,” he said in an interview.

            These claims are analysed and discredited as being either irrelevant to global warming and/or wrong.

            Did you got your information about CO2 from the Galileo Institute

            21

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Ian,

          You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

          Firstly, Tony Abbott did not ratify the Paris Agreement. Malcolm Turnbull did.

          Secondly, did you, did Tony Abbott, did anyone know that the USA was going to pull out of the Agreement?

          Did Tony Abbott or anybody else know that Germany was going to change strategy and build more coal fired power station and burn brown coal and not meet its commitments? Did you? Do you know how many others will not meet their commitments?

          Did Tony Abbott know that the economies that signed on to the Green Climate Fund were going to fail to meet their commitments? Did you? The $100 billion (per annum) was a figure that they all, hand on heart, swore to provide. Howard Bamsey has just chucked in the towel. He’s too polite to say why. However, I’ll chance my arm and say it has more to do with the hypocrisy of the international bleeding hearts who fail to make good their promises, than his stated reasons.

          So don’t come here with your unresearched nonsense. Your propaganda.

          Tony Abbott is probably the most honest one of all those who attended Paris. None of them knew what they were signing on to. When they finally worked it out they realised how naive and unworldly they were. And, how they had committed their economies to industrial chaos if they pursued their ill thought out commitments. Abbott has been sufficiently honest to state the truth. He didn’t know what a crock of nonsense Paris was going to turn out to be. Nobody did. The difference is that he’s told it as it is.

          The rest just say one thing and do the other. Carpet-baggers and hangers-on. People like you really.

          And you have the temerity to come here with your cock-and-bull?

          121

          • #
            WXcycles

            ” … Tony Abbott is probably the most honest one of all those who attended Paris. None of them knew what they were signing on to. When they finally worked it out they realised how naive and unworldly they were. … ”
            —-

            First off, Abbott is an experienced politician so he’s not at all “honest”. (there’s a “more honest” and a “less honest”? who says?) “Once upon a time there was a politician, and this one was almost ‘honest’ …”

            Sorry, not buying that, if Abbott was such an (very allegedly) honest babe in the woods, he never should have been the guy who could make such potentially desasterous decisions.

            Of course he wasn’t and isn’t an honest babe in the woods, he made the decisions which reinforced this whole mess, so he’s quite responsible for that, and is accountable to us all for it too. So I’m not letting Abbott or any other pilitician off the hook. I don’t see any ‘good’ ones or any “honest” ones.

            These things are imaginary, just wishy-washy ideologically based polarised ‘thinking’.

            As for Ian, above, he may not have all of everything he said straight, but I don’t think his comment deserves such condemnation. The strong politicisation of the subject matter has in my view lowered standards of discussion and made people less open and much more politically strident.

            What’s more often happening is that fairly innocuous comments tgat are being made are being re-interpreted on the fly by the politically sensitized, let’s call them, through their individual ideological prisms which reflects their preferred polarisation, rather than accepting the face value of what’s written.

            All that does is fan further polarisation, which frankly, seems to be an intent.

            Call me a skeptic but I think 100% of politicians are dishonest, and very greedy for power over me, and 100% of political ideologies lead to extremism and despotism–;if not continually questioned and exposed.

            Keep it in perspective.

            60

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              So the short-hand take out, according to your interpretation, is that when a person (in this case a politician) admits that they were not aware of the implications of what they decided to do – and subsequently reverse their position in light of more relevant information, is to be characterised as somehow being less honest?

              That might be your position. And you’re entitled to it. However, it’s the cynic’s view, not the sceptic’s.

              For me? I prefer to give credit when an error is admitted, and a better course adopted.

              Call me a skeptic but I think 100% of politicians are dishonest, and very greedy for power over me,

              It’s not all about you, WXcycles. Narcissism is more suited to the sanctimonious green-left.

              11

              • #
                WXcycles

                And nor did I say it was all ahout me, but thanks for spinning it that way, and characterising me as such—smear tactic noted.

                If you think politicians are honest, and not power hungry, well, good luck with that. lol

                10

            • #
              Dennis

              Your comment suggests that you do not understand how the elected government operates, and in particular the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet. Cabinet being of course where Cabinet Ministers meet to discuss and vote on issues of the day, policy, etc.

              A Prime Minister is something like a chairman of a board of directors and must act in accordance with the majority decision, with some room to override the majority. However, I doubt that most prime ministers would risk becoming a dictator and being replaced. Let alone Tony Abbott who was well aware of his political opponents in Cabinet.

              01

          • #
            Ian

            Thank you for your diatribe it was most informative as it shows you really have no idea of the processes involved in the Paris Agreement. Commitment to Paris and ratification of the Paris Agreemenrtare separate issues.

            But first to address your list of things Abbott didn’t’ know. I agree he didn’t know of the things you mention. But one thing he certainly did know and what you do not mention, is that however much Australia cuts emissions it will make absolutely no difference to the global CO2 concentration. Just about everyone in Australia is aware of that. So knowing that why did Abbott sign up for Australia to reduce its CO2 emissions by 26-28% of 2005 emissions by 2030?

            Now to commitment and ratification and commitment

            The first step in the Paris Agreement was that countries were asked to submit by how much they would cut emissions . This was a statement from the government and was signed by the head of government In Australia’s case Tony Abbott who categorically states he did sign to the effect that Australia would cut CO2 emissions by 26-28% of 2005 levels by 2030. This was the initial and most significant step in the Paris Agreement. If Abbott hadn’t set the ball rolling Turnbull would have nothing to ratify.

            The reason countries that had submitted a commitment to Paris ratified this commitment was that to put the agreement into force required both ratification by at least 55 of these countries and the cumulative savings of these countries had to be greater than a 55% cut to emissions.

            All but about 6 of the 197 countries that committed to the Paris Agreement have now ratified. As Australia was one of the last to do so by the time Turnbull ratified, the Paris Agreement was already in force. His ratification made no difference one way or another. But to have not ratified would have damaged Australia’s credibility with their allies and trading partners and that risk was not worth taking.

            I hope that has cleared your misconception that in some way Turnbull was responsible for Australia committing to the Paris Agreement. He wasn’t He was responsible for joining the vast majority of countries, including the US and China, that did ratify a pre-existing commitment. And in Australia’s case that previous commitment came from Abbott

            33

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              So knowing that why did Abbott sign up for Australia to reduce its CO2 emissions by 26-28% of 2005 emissions by 2030?

              You mean you don’t know the answer to that? Weren’t you putting yourself out as the “expert”? Or are you just being disingenuous?

              Let me explain it to you in simple English.

              Just as the USA has achieved massive reductions in its emissions (the world’s largest under President Trump), Abbott (and others) were well aware that Australia could achieve much the same very easily and without undermining the competitiveness of Australian industry.

              How? With efficient HELE, fracking, landfill methane capture, sequestration of Carbon in forests and soils, 20 million trees, motor vehicle efficiencies and the like, meant it could be done easily. All without the need for a Carbon tax or hidden pseudo-Carbon tax. And, without the massive hike in consumer electricity costs that the Australian people have been subjected to under Top-hat Turnbull.

              (Turnbull’s)….ratification made no difference one way or another.
              But to have not ratified would have damaged Australia’s credibility with their allies and trading partners and that risk was not worth taking.

              That’s just more bollocks. And green-left bollocks at that.

              Identify and quantify the risk that was “not worth taking”.

              Do you really think our allies would get all sulky over being jilted in Paris?

              You mean like the USA?

              The USA withdrew from Paris of its own accord. What damage would be done there? What specific risk exists to our trade with the USA if we had pulled the plug? They did it themselves. No risk there.

              However, to demonstrate how juvenile the idea is, you only need to ask yourself: “what action did Australia (and all the other Paris lovers) take against the USA’s withdrawal”?

              And what about our other “trading partners”?

              Which ones did you have in mind and what would they have done?

              Do you seriously think India and China would stop buying out coal? Are you serious? Or our Iron ore? Or Nickel?

              Would Japan stop buying our LNG exports? Wood-chip exports?

              Would the Arabs do a dummy-spit and stop buying our grain? Our sheep exports? Cattle exports?
              Or a put a tariff on our (now none existent) Toyota engine exports?

              Of course they wouldn’t. Just as they haven’t done with the USA or with Germany for its failure to meet its target – or the rest of the EU.

              We’re getting well used to the revision of history by the green-left and the Turnbull lefties. Once it may have had a semblance of credibility; but now, like Turnbull’s poll numbers, it’s gone belly-up. A dead fish.

              50

              • #
                Ian

                “How? With efficient HELE, fracking, landfill methane capture, sequestration of Carbon in forests and soils, 20 million trees, motor vehicle efficiencies and the like, meant it could be done easily. All without the need for a Carbon tax or hidden pseudo-Carbon tax. And, without the massive hike in consumer electricity costs that the Australian people have been subjected to under Top-hat Turnbull.”

                Who would build a HELE. No commercial business. Fracking? Have you not heard NSW and Victoria have banned fracking? The reduction in America’s CO2 emissions is largely through replacing coal with natural gas. Hopefully that will happen in Australia. As of the rest you may be correct

                Turnbull’s)….ratification made no difference one way or another.
                But to have not ratified would have damaged Australia’s credibility with their allies and trading partners and that risk was not worth taking.

                That’s just more bollocks. And green-left bollocks at that.

                Identify and quantify the risk that was “not worth taking”.

                Do you really think our allies would get all sulky over being jilted in Paris?

                You mean like the USA? No I don’t mean like the USA but like China. China would certainly have noticed and in case you haven’t noticed, China is our major trading partner. Risking difficulties with China or India or Japan or the EU or the Arabian countries would be stupid so why take the risk. Just ratify. It doesn’t alter by one iota Australia’s commitment set up by Abbott. Of course as ratification seems to be beyond your comprehension I doubt you of;llow that argument. Let me emphasise one more time to try and get through your right wing prejudice. All the countries you have mentioned ratified the treaty. If Australia didn’t it could well give an excuse in the future for retaliation. Retaliation might never have happened but why invite it?

                How can you identify and quantitate what might happen if you didn’t ratify? Why is Abbott now saying he shouldn’t have signed and wouldn’t have done so had j[he known what would happen Why didn’t he identify and quantitate the unknown? Because it was exactly that. Unknown. The unknown is also why Turnbull ratified. Jeez you’re hard work

                And for the last time. Try and get your head around the fact that ratification did not change anything regarding the commitment to reduce our green house gas emission. If Turnbull hadn’t signed we would still be committed to reducing our emissions. But would Australia want to be one of only seven nations out of 197 that hadn’t ratified Paris? who would have taken us at our word in future?

                And one final point. You seem unaware of the US is still in the Paris Agreement and will be so until at leat November 2019

                34

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                Ian says:

                All the countries you have mentioned ratified the treaty. If Australia didn’t it could well give an excuse in the future for retaliation. Retaliation might never have happened but why invite it?

                Retaliation would not happen. You’re fear-mongering for Top-hat Turnbull. Which is how the green-left operates.

                There has been no retaliation on the USA for its withdrawal. There’s been no retaliation on Germany for its failure to meet its targets to date.

                There’s was no retaliation on Canada for its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Nor on Japan.

                The international trading system doesn’t work on retaliation. That’s something that only exists in the minds of the unworldly green-left.

                The lame old argument of retaliation is just that: lame.

                However, what is not lame is the irresponsible disregard of Turnbull to the damage he’s doing to Australian industry through increased costs of power and unreliability of supply. Leaving aside the adverse affect that has on international competitiveness, the retaliation will be seen in the drop-off of investment. Foreign Direct Investment is footloose. It’ll go where the impediments are fewest. Turnbull is ensuring that Australia is not a destination favoured for investment purposes.

                Is it too much to expect the green-left zealots to comprehend that?

                10

              • #
                Ian

                The international trading system doesn’t work on retaliation. That’s something that only exists in the minds of the unworldly green-left.

                The lame old argument of retaliation is just that: lame”

                What!!! Are you joking? Surely you cannot be serious. Are you so unaware of current events that you do not know that countries all over the world are retaliating against the tariffs Trump has imposed?

                China is not only retaliating strongly but is urging other countries to do the same. Canada announced on May 31 it would impose tariffs on US goods. On June 1 the EU announced it would impose tariffs on US goods. On May 22 Japan and Russia and Turkey warned the US they will retaliate on tariffs.

                So retaliation belongs in the minds of tr Green?Left does it? What a senseless remark that is when the evidence is staring you in the face that the world right now is showing that statement is just total bollocks (to purloin one of your expressions)

                And you seriously ask me to take seriously anything you write? Why on earth should I or anyone else for that matter, consider anything you write as having the slightest validity when you quite clearly do not know what you are talking about.

                Abbott is lucky having supporters such as yourself who are so easily duped and so lacking in knowledge about global affairs. No wonder he got away scot free with signing Australia up to Paris.

                Oh and one more thing-Turnbull persuaded Trump not to impose tariffs on Australia’s steel and aluminium. I expect you didn’t know that either

                12

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                Yes, tit-for-tat tariffs are usual in failed trade negotiations. But that’s not what we’re talking about.

                Name me one country that retaliated against Canada’s withdrawal from Kyoto.

                Name me another for Japan.

                Name me one that has threatened to take action against the USA for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.

                Name me one that took action against any of those who failed to meet their targets under Kyoto.

                Just for each will do.

                20

            • #
              Ian

              “Yes, tit-for-tat tariffs are usual in failed trade negotiations. But that’s not what we’re talking about.’

              What?? Are you so forgetful that you don’t remember that in your comment to which I replied you wrote:

              ““The international trading system doesn’t work on retaliation. That’s something that only exists in the minds of the unworldly green-left.

              Absolutely no mention of “tit for tat tariffs” there

              So when you wrote international trading system you meant something else? How am I supposed to know? I’m not a mind reader so I replied to what you actually wrote not what I thought you wrote or what you thought you wrote. Your statement was manifestly wrong as right now the international trading system is most definitely working on retaliation.

              If you can’t communicate clearly perhaps you’d be better off not commenting.

              But to get to your comment about naming one country etc. I can’t, because none have done so, as yet. But that doesn’t rule out the possibility that in the future some will.

              Let’s look at Abbott who now freely admits he would not have signed the Paris Agreement if he had known the USA was going to withdraw. But he didn’t know and couldn’t possibly have known, so he signed.

              Equally when Turnbull ratified the Paris Agreement he didn’t know and could not possibly have known what the future might bring. As all but 6 of 197 countries have ratified the agreement the possibility exists that at some time in the future not ratifying may cause problems for those six countries. So at the time, joining with the vast majority of countries that did ratify was clearly the safer course of action.

              If in the future the UN decides to impose sanctions on those few countries that did not ratify, Turnbull’s action will be seen to be correct. Can you categorically this won’t happen s as it hasn’t happened before? Of course you can’t.

              So to sum up.

              It was OK for Abbott to sign up for Paris as he couldn’t know at the time what the future would bring. But now he does know he says had he known he would have acted differently. Like all of us, he is wise in hindsight

              On the other hand, Turnbull, who also had no idea of what the future might bring when he ratified the Paris Agreement is pilloried for doing so.

              So OK for Abbott to sign not knowing the future but wrong for Turnbull to ratify also not knowing the future? Yeah that’d be rght.

              12

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                So to sum up.

                So, the long and short of your bluster is to demonstrate to the readership that can’t point to any example of where trade was used to punished any economy that failed to meet its Kyoto commitments. Not Canada. Not Japan.

                Similarly, you can’t point to any example of any Paris signatory beginning to take action (or even threatening to do so) against the USA for withdrawing from Paris. Nor can you demonstrate any action against Germany for it failure to meet its targets to date.

                From that we can conclude that your argument, that the risk of trade retaliation against Australia should it withdraw from the Paris love-in, is barren.

                You prefer to conflate the issue of tariff tit-for-tat in a trade-on-trade situation (which will get sorted by the WTO if its got any credibility left) as an example of how it might work.

                Well, you’ve demonstrated to all who read this, that your initial assertion (risk) is just typical green-left fear-mongering. Hot air.

                Oh, and BTW. I’ll comment when are where I like. If your comprehension levels are so juvenile then I suggest you do a remedial. Perhaps you’d be well suited to Top-hat Turnbull’s office, since you’d fit in nicely there. It can’t seem to comprehend reality either.

                20

              • #
                Ian

                I can’t work out if you really are dillonr just slow witted..It seems utterly beyond your comprehension that people can’t foretell the future.. Hrere you are banging on about what has happened and not happened in the past all of which is common knowledge. Let me try and use the simplest language i can Did you expect the US to pull out of Paris? No you did not. Did Abbott no he dxid not. The point I’mm making that you resolutely refuse to acknowledge or perhaps you really don’t have the capacity to understand is that the unexpected is just that unexpected. Just because something hasn’t happened before, your muddled thinking is that it will never happen. Now that is extremely foolish.as Tony Abbott has found out. So stop dwelling on what hasn’t happened in the past and look at the surprise announcement by Trump that no one not even you foretold Turnbull is right to reduce risk as much as he can under current conditions.
                Oh hand BTW “’ll comment when are where I like”. How masterful. How brave and how utterly childish At least I’m not a fool who cannot distinguish between the past and the future. Unfortunately you are. Go and joint other kids in the sand pit why don’t you?

                00

        • #

          Ian, those of us who are not right-wing (you can call me conservative with conservationist leanings) don’t really care about the Save the Turnbull Society or the Raise the Abbott Foundation. If Abbott is now prepared to go in hard against Green Blob he may be worth a punt (I doubt it), but it’s clear that another day of Turnbull is not worth the punt. It’s not like he can hold a thought, finish a sentence or convince a seagull. I’m shallow enough to be impressed by money…but Malcolm is a dolt sent on a globalist mission. (Murdoch and his corporate mates are not dolts. They’re something else again.)

          Listening to the likes of Sinclair Davidson and Miranda Devine criticising around and over and under Turnbull is becoming as painful for us as for them. My mind was briefly open in the spring of 2015 before it became apparent that Turnbull’s role was to drag along the globalist bullldozer with the help of massive white elephants.

          You really have to stop coming around in a sulk over your pet pollie. Expensive and unreliable power along with continued de-industrialistion is far too great a menace. The real danger of Turnbull is that he is electoral poison (Abbott isn’t, he’s just media poison). Turnbull is actually in a stronger position because he has reduced the House to a paper-thin majority and can openly threaten to tip out if he loses the leadership. You see, when Malcolm briefly stops being a dolt he can be stupendously cynical.

          Most here are aware that Labor is waiting with its hand on the migrant tap, ready to raffle us off to the Chinese or to the Davos fake-tan brigade – or preferably both. Your boy is electoral poison even with the help of our hopelessly centralised and corporatised media. If he was any good that would still be a reason to dump him…and he’s not any good.

          91

          • #
            Ian

            Turnbull isn’t my pet pollie I don’t have one but I strongly object to distortion of facts at which the Abbott adorers have no equal.

            This comment of yours is typical of such distortion

            .”The real danger of Turnbull is that he is electoral poison (Abbott isn’t, he’s just media poison).

            That is just not true . Several polls including a couple of Newspolls have repeatedly shown Turnbull is preferred to Abbott as leader of the Liberals . All voters prefer Turnbull to Abbott by a ratio of 2 to 1 and Liberal voters by a ratio of 3 to 1. T

            Here’s another snide remark so typical of the Abbott fan club

            “Your boy is electoral poison even with the help of our hopelessly centralised and corporatised media. If he was any good that would still be a reason to dump him…and he’s not any good.”

            All someone in the Liberal party needs to do is call a spill motion and put Turnbull’s leadership to the vote

            Why do you think the party room hasn’t’ done that? Could it be they know more about Turnbull than you do? Perish the thought that they would dismiss the opinion of such an astute observer of politics and politicians as yourself.. You must write to them stat and advise of the folly of their ways

            02

            • #

              You just can’t stop promoting this wastrel and fop. There has to be a Davidson-Devine trophy for this kind of painful contortion.

              When in doubt, shriek Abbott…even when the opponent makes clear multiple times that he is not an Abbott supporter. Turnbull nearly lost an election against Shorten but bizarrely finds his position strengthened because he has made it clear he will resign his seat in the event. What a guy.

              It’s a bit like your belief that our massive COAL customers would care about our ratification of Paris. Nothing will shake you, nothing will pull you out of your sulk.

              Turnbull had his chance, helped along by slave media which, if you haven’t noticed, are indeed hopelessly centralised and corporatised, far more so in the last few years.

              Murdoch will let you feel you have a choice between blue team and red team, the giant gorilla ABC (pretending to be Bambi) doesn’t bother with such hypocrisies, going with watermelon-pink every time. Andrew Bolt’s attacks on Turnbull are done for realism’s sake or personal pique, since nobody who sees through the wastrel fop Turnbull could go boosting globalist automaton Frydenberg the way Bolt has done. The creepy agenda advances nicely under the Murdoch-ABC duopoly. Rupert’s just a lot trickier in the way he can corral conservatives for the abattoir.

              Repeating: I am not a right-winger or an Abbott supporter. Turnbull is a wastrel and a fop who is electoral poison. Abbott has not been PM since the spring of 2015. The wastrel fop has been PM since spring of 2015. Hope you’ve at least noticed that.

              Again, in case you’ve missed the point. Abbott is not the issue. The issue is a wastrel fop called Turnbull. I don’t care who may or may not have committed to the fake-tan brigade in Paris. I care about who will UNCOMMIT now.

              40

              • #
                Ian

                You’re like a small kid in the playground shouting ‘wastrel fop, you’re a wastrel fop. But where’s your evidence to support your contention that he is a wastrel fop? None here. Just you shrieking o the world “Turnbull is wastrel fop, wastrel fop”

                Sorry but you’re really not worth bothering with as you clearly cannot sustain your argument that Turnbull is a wastrel fop.

                04

              • #

                I was about to tell you…when you said I’m not worth bothering with. Aw.

                And there are so many delicious tales to tell of GE, oiler subs for later in the century (Greg Sheridan says “Great choice!”), Uphill Snowy, agile mini-cities that don’t exist, a New Federalism (don’t ask me…and don’t even ask Malcolm about that one).

                I could go on about all the toys Malcolm has chucked out of the cot or that we wish he had chucked, but I hope my use of the terms “wastrel” and “fop” has now been clarified. The climax of his foppery was surely that moist-legged interview with Leigh Sales following his non-electoral triumph. (Silly me thought he still might be okay after that cringe-fest. Since Tin-Ear Abbott butchered Newman’s chances in Qld by knighting a duke instead of Mal Meninga I was clutching at any straw. We can all be stubborn, Ian.)

                As for your insistence that I must be an Abbott supporter and right-winger, I’m reminded of a wind-up Elmer Fudd toy that keeps wanting to get “those wascally wabbits”. When there are no rabbits around our automated Elmer still wants to get those “wascally wabbits”.

                21

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Mosomo,

            This is really weird that someone could be so unaware of the impression he is giving.

            Tantrum Kid who claims to have a PhD but can’t discuss even basic concepts of science.

            TK, stamping his feet and yelling, “look at my paper”.

            TK ignoring the “science” and showing what this has always been about; The Politics.

            In particular, the politics of Saving Our President, big mal.

            Shades of Skeptical Science, TK is incapable of having his own thoughts and blurts out the received word via computer until his shift being over, his nose ring is unchained and he is allowed to walk home.

            Break free TK, break free.

            KK

            21

            • #
              Ian

              “TK, stamping his feet and yelling, “look at my paper”.”

              KK you are liar. Not a nice expression I agree but one easily proved by looking at my previous comments. I did not say at any time “look at my paper” as you well know because I have challenged you on that comment before. So why do you repeat it?

              “Tantrum Kid who claims to have a PhD but can’t discuss even basic concepts of science”.

              I suggested a way you could check my claim re a PhD. If I was lying why would I do that?

              And as for “but can’t discuss even basic concepts of science” what a crass hypocritical liar you are. I asked you to provide evidence that humans had not had an impact on global warming. Did you provide it? No you did not. Did you discuss it? No you did not. Have you ever referred to it in any of your subsequent comments? No you have not.

              You said “basic physics shows CO2 is not a heat trapping gas”. I posted links to two articles (not”my papers”) that showed it was a heat trapping gas.. Did you comment on those? No you did not. Did you say why those papers were wrong and your statement was right? No you did not. Why not? The obvious answer is that you cannot.

              Clearly you it is you not me that cannot.discuss science. You just use ad homs as a cloak for your stupidity and ignorance

              So don’t come the raw prawn with all this lying BS claiming I don’t discuss science. I provide you with evidence that refutes your claims but do you discuss that evidence? No you do not. You’re just a charlatan with no objection to lying to conceal your own inadequacies.

              You have discussed nothing and therefore clearly know nothing. And KK, anyone who goes back through our recent exchange of comments will see that my claim that you are lying is valid

              01

        • #
          TedM

          Ian you say……”This site is becoming indeed has become, an extension of The Australian and Andrew Bolt ad Peta Credlin and The Daily Telegraph…..”

          Just what is wrong with presenting the facts?

          71

          • #
            Ian

            Absolutely nothing providing the facts are fairly presented which is not the case for any of those mentioned who are so far too the right they’re out of sight of centrists

            12

        • #
          Dennis

          Not true, PM Abbott’s involvement ended in September 2015 when he was replaced by PM Turnbull.

          The Turnbull led government attended the Paris Conference in late Nov/Dec 2015 and later in April 2016 signed the Paris Agreement in New York. Later in 2016, November I recall, they ratified that Agreement in New York.

          For whatever cunning reasons and purposes the government and others now want to claim that Abbott was responsible they rely on a media statement from the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet mid year 2015 announcing intention to attend the Paris Conference. I understand that PM Abbott argued strongly for not entering into an agreement binding (ratified) Australia and for the emissions reduction targets to be sensible and not damaging to the economy.

          In 2015 PM Abbott commented that he would not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

          10

        • #
          Dennis

          ” Tony Abbott has recently said he didn’t understand what he was signing up for. ”

          He did not say that.

          Check his speech, he was speaking about what he would have done if he had been PM at the time.

          00

      • #
        Geoff

        I have no experience with Malcolm Turnbull beyond business.

        Why he became PM is because the Canberra media and academics everywhere like him. He is a media source. A leaker from the Abbott cabinet and even his own cabinet. He finances every mad university scheme imaginable. Our Hecs debt now dwarfs many country’s budgets

        Turnbull is an opportunist first. He can only manage by populism and has very little idea how to run anything. There is no “vision”, no goals beyond self. His plan can be found in any National Socialist’s Handbook. However, believing you are “born to rule” does not make you “fit to rule”.

        By the numbers he is about to lose an election to the ALP. The public are not fooled by the Canberra press gallery. Big government with Canberra media approval is not going to make Australian’s wealthy. House prices can fall.

        Canberra bureaucracy exists because of the taxpayer. It does not make money. Mostly, it cannot accurately count it. It can NEVER predict an outcome as it is not connected to reality.

        The energy crisis can simply be fixed by removing us from the Paris Agreement and cancelling the RET. There will be pain. There always is when you believe your own press releases.

        This will not stop the states saying they will continue subsidizing wind and solar. “Saying” is not “doing”.

        The RET is a clear signal to voters and financiers. The states are rent seekers. They will follow the money. Turn off the RET and they will suddenly support an opposite view with equal vigor. They have no moral position or need to “fix the climate”. Their need for money, (from any source), drives them. Without it they cannot get re-elected.

        If the Federal Government suddenly said that there was an approaching flood and all states needs to start building an ark they would build one if a an ark grant was forthcoming. Academics would become ark experts. They would start ark degrees. In a short while, an ark degree would be required to make an ark. The Federal Government would double down with a tax on ark building and a Royal Commission into why arks have been built by trades persons without ark degrees. The local ark building business would crash and Australia would import all its arks from China. Turnbull would blame ark building on Tony Abbott. The Canberra press gallery and most academia would pronounce that Tony Abbott was an unqualified ark builder.

        110

  • #
    Spetzer86

    Unless somebody puts down some big assurances that future governments won’t be able to go back on a coal facility deal, it’ll never get started. Also, there needs to be protection against RE skimming off the demand at random intervals.

    250

    • #
      Yonniestone

      The first battle will be to get a functional, rational government elected then the biggest battle will be for that government to enact their policies while fighting green/left extremism that has infested politics and the public psyche, ask President Trump whats that like then consider they have the 2nd amendment for protection against tyranny, we have a vote, Governor General and now populist activism to enact change.

      182

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Once we have excess capacity in coal fired, and no subsidies then there will be no market for wind turbines or large scale solar. Only those turbines which have been paid or by the excessive profits (from the subsidies) will be able to compete, and they will be close to the end of their life. The Greens won’t be able to complain – well they will anyway – but having shouted long and hard about renewables being cheaper, they won’t sound convincing.
      Household solar will be a problem. Older feed-in tariffs will have to be cut (mine included) but recent purchasers should still receive something (otherwise a political problem).

      212

    • #
      Allen Ford

      Also sanctions against crazy pollies blowing up perfectly good, working CF power generators and bragging about it

      52

  • #

    Commiserations, Jo.

    It takes a dedicated soul to press on loaded down with the dreaded lurgy!

    150

    • #

      Yes thank you for struggling to keep this oasis in the desert of insanity alive. One of the few places on the net where the posts and comments are worth reading just for a break from the lemming mantras.

      260

      • #
        Latus Dextro

        Likewise Jo, utterly miserable to have to soldier through H1N1 & RSV … get well quickly and then take some convalescence (a word rarely used in the contemporary medical or health vernacular). Never mind the pesky green electrons, how you place one keystroke in front of another is superhuman.

        Siliggy, if you’re on a tour, check out Brandon Straka #Walk Away on YouTube, and go from there. Most enjoyable.

        50

    • #
      sophocles

      Not nice bugs, Jo, but all the same: my best wishes for a speedy recovery and quick return to your comfort zone.
      All the very best.

      (PS: don’t follow the IPCC and ignore the sun: for these bugs it’s very helpful.)

      20

  • #

    Turnbull to consider new coal power in Australia?

    What a coincidence. We’ve been considering a new PM in Australia.

    Because, y’know, Malcolm doing coal is like Theresa doing Brexit. He’ll be very decisive in considering the possibility of giving thought to the matter.

    Malcolm may even break out the hard hat and fluoro vest to make an announcement in a place frequented by actual smelly Australians for making their livelihood. (You know how that bit-of-rough look makes the weekday tennis ladies of Wentworth swoon.)

    Maybe there is a hyper-expensive (French? Areva?) new technology which will make coal power respectable enough to join the “smart” mix of other hyper-expensive, nation-squashing white elephants. Only a swarm of lobbyists can know for sure.

    Nope. Malcolm gone. Josh gone. Ben Ean Julie gone. Back to the bank or on to the foundation of their choice. But gone.

    What part of “gone” don’t the Libs get?

    211

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Ben Ean Julie

      :-)

      Can I use that?

      But hey! That’s my local member you’re referencing, mosomoso.

      I’ve never seen her sip Ben Ean.

      In fact, in all the years I’ve lived in the electorate that she infects, I’ve never seen her at all. Not even in Rokeby Road and that’s where her skull cave is located. We call her Mrs Walker* here.

      * The ghost who walks.

      70

      • #

        I reckon she models her and boyfriend’s image on those Ben Ean Moselle commercials of the 1980s, where the cool people lolled around on the grass wearing white clothes and big hats. The look was inspired by Picnic at Hanging Rock, maybe.

        In any case, she has to go. And Josh has to go. And Malcolm…my God does he ever have to go. New Coal is just another toy he’ll toss out of the cot. Ignore.

        No question of taking it to a showdown between Turnbull and Shorten, with Ben Ean Julie and Sonya Plebiscite as deputies. Shorten and Plebiscite would win that one. We need a palace coup, an Ottoman election, with the losers copping a sinecure at Deutsche or GS rather than the traditional garrote. There’s also the Clinton Foundation/Initiative. They owe Australia’s recent leaders a favour or two…though it might be hard pulling Julia away from the trough to get a feed.

        Anyway, first things first. It’s after 6pm on July 14 2018 and Malcolm Turnbull is still Prime Minister of Australia.

        60

      • #

        mosomoso and Sceptical Sam, plus one.

        Oh be aware of those United Nations’
        (Agenda Twenty-One,)and EU corridors
        of power, rustling of cardinal silk
        and whisperings within the stone-walled,
        or double glazed hive, … ’twas never
        about real problems for the citizens
        of the nation,’twas, and is, always
        about themselves.

        70

      • #
        GD

        “In fact, in all the years I’ve lived in the electorate that she infects, I’ve never seen her at all.”
        So why do you lot keep voting for her? Surely there’s a worthy independent you could support.

        00

  • #
    DonK31

    If this were mine , I might rephrase some words:

    “Better would be for the government to get out of the market, stop trying to use our electricity grid as a Global Climate Controller, stop forcing consumers to buy green electrons, stop trying to pick-the-winners in the tec game”

    The government isn’t trying to pick-the-winners. That’s what a person playing the horses does down at the track.

    The government has been trying to determine the winners. When the government determines the winners, those who bet on the government pick are always winners.

    170

  • #

    Not much difference between determining winners and picking winners. I think Jo’s words lead to a government that does not enforce the gambling of citizen money on unbalanced subsidy sucking fads that inefficiently provide things when not needed or wanted while hindering self funding existing infrastructure that does the opposite.

    70

  • #
    Graham Richards

    Don’t believe a word of it. The slime ball of all slimeballs has an election coming up & we all know he’ll say anything for votes! If he wins the next election Electricity will rise price by a further 20% over 2 years, and coal will be demonised even more & any return to coal power wiped out completely. Carbon taxes will be applied to anything & everything that uses energy.

    230

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Exactly.

      Never trusted Grumble.

      Never will trust him.

      Has Never demonstrated empathy with working Australians.

      Will never change.

      We only have one option: kick him out and lock the door.

      KK

      251

    • #

      Absolutely. Turnbull’s is the last person’s word that I’d trust. He gives snake-oil salesmen a bad name.

      180

      • #

        Call him out for what he is.

        70

      • #
        Mal

        Shorten will be worse.

        We need someone to drain the swamp.

        As a start we need to drain the ABC of the real pollution, Leftie greenie propaganda peddlers ( Australian Pravda)
        Once we have a media telling facts, then we may get leaders who then can act rationally.

        80

        • #
          John in Oz

          Agree re shorten

          He was arguing against the recommendations of the ACCC report then admitted he had not read it.

          Remember his “I agree with everything she (Gillard) said” comment several years ago? He has not learned anything in the interim.

          40

  • #
    David Maddison

    I don’t like the term “clean” coal or even HELE (high efficiency low emissions) for that matter because it reinforces the falsehood that “emissions”, specifically CO2, are a problem. Naturally there are potentially genuinely undesirable emissions from coal combustion but those haven’t been an issue for half a century since various scrubbing technologies were first implemented.

    392

    • #
      Dennis

      Refer people who comment about coal emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency and suggest that they lodge a complaint with detailed information about the source.

      And to ask the EPA why they have ignored the situation.

      50

    • #
      RickWill

      Power stations emit CO2 as well as H2O. The is the nature of combustion.

      You are confusing the word emission with airborne pollutant. The US EPA has regulated carbon dioxide so it has been defined as a pollutant in order to be regulated. I am not sure what the current state of the regulations are.

      20

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      It’s amazing that the U.S.government could identify CO2 off gases produced during combustion as a pollutant.

      The scientific fact is that CO2 off gas and water are the only two bye products of that process that are not pollutants.

      Politics has hit an all-time low with this scam.

      KK

      51

  • #
    Ruairi

    The Greens wield their big hockey sticks,
    And come down like a ton of bricks,
    On politicians who try,
    With a skeptical eye,
    To mix coal with their Green politics.

    230

  • #
    Lance

    Watch things as they proceed with great and genuine suspicion.

    In India, a good many coal plants were built that are now up for auction without having produced any power.

    This is because the Govt “rescinded their coal allocation” and said companies did not have guaranteed power purchase agreements (PPA’s) in hand. In other words, they had no fuel to generate power and the power they might generate had no lawful contract in the power pool to sell power on the grid. Hence, bankruptcy and liquidation.

    It would not surprise me a whit to see Turnbull & Co. allow the plants to be built, and then deny them the coal to operate or deny them enough guaranteed access to the grid and guaranteed market share of baseload to be profitable. Either would be a “backdoor” way to kill the plants and remain anonymous.

    If the Govt is serious, they must first explain how the baseload coal plants will be operated, fueled, and managed with respect to fuel and market share of baseload. Otherwise, this entire scenario is an exercise in politics, optics, and applied stupidity.

    Investors and ratepayers beware.

    260

    • #
      Lance

      30,000 MW of coal fired capacity is up for sale in India.

      https://qz.com/1000602/15-billion-worth-of-coal-power-plants-are-on-sale-in-india-but-nobody-wants-to-buy-them/

      If Turnbull is serious, entire plants are available at auction “on the cheap” and relatively nearby.

      Just address the issue of PPAs and guaranteed fuel allocations and things might go rather well.

      81

      • #
        el gordo

        Amazing.

        To avoid the obvious pitfalls, government should put out tenders for new coal fired power stations at Hazelwood and Mt Piper near Lithgow. Its the main election issue now that Dutton has defused the immigration problem.

        Here is Murphy in the Guardian, it all comes back to the interpretation of ‘firm’.

        ‘In order to qualify for the putative help, the project would need to be large enough to serve the needs of a large number of customers, and capable of providing a “firm” product.

        ‘If a firm generation product is a new concept for you, it could be a few things. Possibly new coal …..’

        60

      • #
        ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

        Awesome!

        I’ll just get out my extension lead..

        50

        • #
          PeterS

          Well we could just move our companies to India instead of China and forget Australia, the land of too high power prices.

          50

          • #
            ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

            We’ve been doing that already for too long. But I wouldn’t want to live there because I wouldn’t be allowed to eat the beef.

            40

    • #
      truth

      Lance…..I couldn’t agree more .

      In fact I have real doubts about the integrity of the ACCC report.
      I wonder just how much of the Report is Sims’ conclusions and how much is from the firms and CSIRO providing the input…and specifically designed to help Turnbull .
      We know CSIRO’s captured by proponents of CAGW …and doesn’t tolerate sceptic opinion within its ranks…so it would never do anything to harm Turnbull’s TRANSITION IMO.
      Brattle Group also seem to be true believers…with Paris and emission cuts as default position…
      …and Houston Kemp seems to be actively trying to ensure COAL is frozen out of the ASEAN region countries by advising ASEAN governments on how to prevent price rises when government fuel subsidies are lifted…by ASEAN governments using the subsidy funds instead to ‘invest’ in ‘cost of installing renewable generation for customers that would have benefited from those subsidies, then this will reduce the customers’ reliance on thermal generation’.
      A Houston Kemp partner won a prize for ‘best paper’ at an ASEAN conference with their RE plan for a government funding SWITCH from COAL to RE.
      So COAL had to have been the pariah…the vermin to be eradicated… in deliberations they had for the report from the outset IMO…..and the Nats and Craig Kelly are just kidding themselves if they think Recommendation 4 and the new investment it advises the government to underwrite foreshadows any possibility of a HELE coal plant.
      They seem to instantly assume that ‘new dispatchable generation’ means COAL…but it doesn’t…that’s just what it’s convenient for Turnbull and his helper Sims to have them think until it’s too late.
      All through the AEMO and AEMC reports… ‘new dispatchable generation ‘includes or IS weather-dependent wind and solar firmed with batteries and/or water-dependent ..at risk from DROUGHT……pumped hydro.
      Any HELE coal plant will have to be completely government-funded and built IMO…the brainwashing and rent-seeking is too viciously embedded for anything but TPM …borrowed of course .
      Sims and Turnbull are slyly deceiving the Australian people IMO when they allow the hubris from Nats et al to take hold re expectations of government help for coal.
      The Report was designed ..IMO…to help Turnbull flog his NEG and silence Tony Abbott and dissenters in the party room….to make the NEG …with th endorsement from ACCC…a fait accompli without Federal MPs having any opportunity for a party room debate on it.
      Turnbull has nothing but contempt for democracy and for Australia.
      The underwriting plan is meant to solve the problem of the expected lack of [ NEW weather-dependent intermittent INVESTMENT FIRMED with BATTERIES and with PUMPED HYDRO that’s at risk from drought ]
      That investment of course is expected to fall off when the carpetbaggers find themselves deprived of subsidies…even though the government IS subsidizing batteries and pumped hydro instead…as Frydenberg brags.
      Those of the prospective wind and solar investors who have been complaining that no subsidy = no PPAs = no loans….will be the ones that Government underwrites.
      Those of us who think Turnbull’s TRANSITION is from 1st world Australia to 3rd world hell hole are not meant to notice it’s all set in concrete until it’s too late.
      And Turnbull’s dead scared …that his MANTRAS & SLOGANS claiming that he’s tech agnostic …[ that could mean that the INNOVATION-SPRUIKER himself has no faith in technology ]….and his weasely pretence that he would accommodate coal…won’t be enough to exonerate him from blame for the destruction of Australia with his treasonous TRANSITION.

      80

      • #
        shannon

        Welcome back Truth….its been some time..
        Thank you for your post, and the in depth examination of a shrewd and cunning “green” PM.

        30

  • #
    Robert R

    Does this mean that the lefty tech elite wont be using used 747 jet engines down wind from rows of wind turbines to try and get the turbine blades to turn any more?

    120

    • #
      Dennis

      Tech elites?

      I thought they were all students or graduates of arts degrees, social studies or environment.

      100

      • #
        Robert R

        Oh yes! Put it this way……. I wouldn’t be trusting my life on their technology by going on one of their planned ‘high tech’ trips to Mars :)

        110

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Robert R:

          One way or the other you would not come back.

          60

          • #
            Robert R

            Yes they can’t turn wind turbine blades when they need to, but they sure can turn bull when they talk about space travel! :(

            120

          • #
            Dennis

            Maybe, but if you were lucky there would be a social worker on board to look after your anxiety.

            30

            • #
              ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

              Like in the movie “Last Days On Mars” where they just HAD to have a psychologist looking for someone to heal at every opportunity, and he’s the first one to crack!

              LOL..

              30

      • #
        Annie

        The term was ‘lefty tech elites’…so not, by definition, tech elites.

        81

  • #
    PeterS

    As usual he has it backwards. We don’t need him to back coal fired power stations. All we need is for him to remove all subsidies and support for renewables. The market will take care of the rest.

    190

  • #
    TdeF

    Sure, Malcolm wants to build coal fired plants. Stay indoors.

    Why let Liddell close? Why was Hazelwood closed? Don’t tell me they were ‘old’. What deceit. Malcolm is as honest as Theresa May or Hilary Clinton or Al Gore.

    The very premise that mankind can control CO2 levels is science nonsense.

    So what is the real explanation for the crippling of Western democracies by the United Nations or is that a silly question?

    Why is nuclear powered France behind this? Another silly question? Think French desalination plants.

    Everyone agreed with the great Common Market. Then the EEC. Now the European Union with its third parliament and 10,000 unelected bureaucrats earning more than the British PM and writing the laws for the whole of Europe. Shades of 1941. Is Russia really the enemy or once again just the excuse?

    I just saw the Churchill films. The biggest battle Churchill had in The Darkest Hour was with the elites in England, in his own party. Shades of Abbott. Nothing has changed. Turnbull has all the nous of Lord Halifax or Malcolm’s own great uncle, George Lansbury, Adolph’s admirer.

    CO2 is in equilibrium and the CO2 level is set by water surface temperature, which in turn is set by the sun. That is science. The rest is just made up.

    210

    • #
      PeterS

      Indeed why did the coal fired power stations close down and why is Liddell to close down? It’s because power companies can make much more money out of using renewables by charging exorbitant prices to customers under the smoke screen they need to cut emissions to save the planet under the RET scheme. The solution is simple, quick and easy. Just scrap all renewable energy targets, subsidies and support. Then the renewables will have to survive on their own, which in today’s terms means they will collapse, leaving open for coal fired power stations the only means to make profits. Just in case the power companies think they can keep ripping us off with high energy prices Turnbull should figure out a way to prevent that. That’s why he is there – to figure these things out, and not to act like Nero and allowing our country to crash and burn.

      80

      • #
        TdeF

        Agreed. Although there is a deeper problem. No coal fired plant can operate profitably.

        Despite supplying 95% of our pwoer, coal is an energy source of last resort. You have to give (not pay) $2 to the wind scammers to buy $1 of coal electricity. $4 for gas electricity. For that we the public get nothing.

        Consider Hazelwood was a profitable business for which real people paid $2.35Billion and invested to a total of $4Bn. To just close it and walk away tells you that a perfectly functioning coal plant is not viable. That is entirely and wholly due to the RET.

        There are no subsidies. There is only government legislated and supervised theft. As I said to Tony Abbott last week. Repeal the RET and Hazelwood would open.

        The NEG is a Trojan Horse for Climate Change Cr*p.

        151

        • #
          PeterS

          If the NEG is not the real deal that includes the removal and prevention of all RET schemes, present AND FUTURE then there is no other deal and so over the cliff we go. It’s a golden opportunity for the government to get things right using the NEG once and for all. A temporary solution is not good enough because when ALP+Greens get back into power all they will do is put us back into the same mess if not worse.

          20

          • #
            TdeF

            The real deal is to get the Federal Government out of electricity! It was all going beautifully before the RET. The governments were getting out of electricity and railways and banks and telephones and mining and roads and health insurance and …
            Now with massive fines and laws and regulations and hidden payments we have a total mess.

            The Federal government is supposed not to be in Education, Police, Health, Mining. That was the deal. These ares are the exclusive province of the states under our constitution. The Federal government is supposed to look after defence and international trade. The states are supposed to be treated fairly. The mining tax was illegal, like the RET.

            The control of our universities, mining, health and the rest is done through well worn loopholes in our constitution. Just look at how much Canberra is spending on the criminal NBN or the abusive ABC/SBS monoliths. Why?

            The Federal government should get out of energy totally, but they want power, more power and not just electrical. It all started in 2001 and has gone from bad to worse.

            We do not want a NEG. We do not need a NEG. We want the government out of electrical power from whoever supplies it and let the price be set by the market, not by a government. We do not want more massive regulation to ‘fix’ the disaster created by previous regulations.

            As for the ABC/SBS, they want more money, more power and work with the government of the day to get it. Why on earth do we have an ‘ethnic’ broadcasting service chewing up another $400Million a year of our money and running advertisements?

            The Liberal party used to stand for smaller government. Not under Herr Turnbull.

            120

            • #
              PeterS

              The government is out of electricity as it’s mostly run by private business. What they need to do is remove all incentives for renewables to create a level playing field and force the renewables out of business by allowing competition to build coal fired power stations. If that doesn’t happen then all is lost and it will be a total waste of time talking about other means to cut costs, such as rebates schemes and the like, which will not discourage renewables. As for small government no party in history stood for that. That would be asking too much of them. It would be like asking the banks to offer higher returns on savings and lower rates on loans. Reality doesn’t work that way.

              40

    • #
      PeterS

      Agree. The left’s dream is to turn Australia into a socialist dictatorship. The irony of it all is a not too insignificant proportion of the people actually want that, and a significant proportion of the voters unwittingly are backing such a move. Wake up Australia!

      81

      • #
        Dennis

        The people who were born into a very successful democracy based on a capitalist economy who have grown up with excellent health care and education most people in this hard world can only dream of obtaining, if even aware of the many benefits of living in a country like Australia.

        And those foolish people think that a socialist system would be a better deal for them?

        Can we suggest immigration might be their best option and leave the rest of us to enjoy?

        50

        • #
          PeterS

          Familiarity breeds contempt.

          40

        • #
          markx

          Interesting comment.

          Australia is a very successfuly democracy based on a capitalist system.

          With excellent healthcare and education (and until recently) power supplies which have always been more socialistic in nature, run by ‘the state’.

          10

          • #
            manalive

            … power supplies which have always been more socialistic in nature, run by ‘the state’ …

            The earliest electricity generation in NSW was by municipal councils Tamworth being the first, in Queensland first by a private utility company then municipal, in Victoria and Tasmania firstly by private concerns that were gradually taken over by municipal and state governments, in WA by a private company taken over by the state, similarly in SA where electricity wasn’t state-owned until 1946.
            Link.

            20

  • #
    Dennis

    The Australian journalists need advice regarding “dispatchable” and “base load generator”.

    I have also read that base load is an accounting term and has nothing to do with a grid.

    50

    • #
      Lance

      Not to quibble over minor things, however, the “journalists” need to understand a few other definitions.

      Capacity Factor

      Ramping Rate

      Transmission Cost / Km and for whose benefit the lines were built.

      Maintenance Cost / Km /kWh : The losses incurred by a utility when they aren’t allowed to sell power because of RETs and such.

      Fuel Displacement Cost: the only thing that Solar / Wind actually do.

      I’m sure there are other issues. The point is that Journalists oversimplify a complex issue and thereby denude the populace of actual, responsible, reporting.

      I’m rather convinced the Journalists have no interest in understanding the issues at hand, but rather have an agenda they are selling at the cost of AU jobs, economy, and future, all for the sake of self aggrandizement and emotions. But I digress a bit..

      80

    • #
      TdeF

      I live at sea level, a few metres above. Thirty years ago I was assured the seas would rise dramatically, 30 metres by now according to the ABC’s Robin Williams. Also a Tom Jones impersonator. A meter a year. Nothing has happened. Nothing. At what point do people stop believing utter nonsense?

      So why is harbourside Malcolm Turnbull still punishing Australians? Can’t he look out his Point Piper front window? Why is our genius PM spending $12,000 Million of our money pumping water uphill to try to justify windmills? Who agreed to that?

      Why is a far better Prime Minister sitting on the back bench?

      130

      • #
        ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

        At what point do people stop believing utter nonsense?

        At what point do people stop expecting “voting” to do the job for them and physically drag the criminals out into the street, like they did in Iceland?

        50

      • #
        Allen Ford

        Robyn Williams actually proposed a possible 100 metres sea level rise, in an interview with Andrew Bolt.

        Naturally, he is now backtracking, but the link above reveals the full context.

        40

        • #
          TdeF

          Thanks. So
          1. By 2012 he is a ‘journalist’ not a ‘climate scientist’. However in his CV, “Science journalist and broadcaster” and “he graduated with a Bachelor of Science (honours) in England”. So he is a journalist and not a scientist at all when a sensible question is asked. He is a science expert unless totally and outrageously wrong?
          Sell the ABC. According to Mr Williams the ABC are hiring ignorant unqualified people with fake degrees.

          2. He now says 200 years, not 100 years. Next century is now 2199. Who needs a time machine?

          3. It was not his opinion anyway. Something about 120 metres having happened over time somewhere else in a far distant past and this from a passing comment by some real scientist chap who said something like it.

          4. He was not saying this or volunteering his opinion, simply responding to a leading question and misrepresented as having an opinion, especially as he was not employed as the ABC Science Guy but a science ignorant journalist.

          We could drive windmills with hot air like this. Zero credibility. As we knew.

          70

  • #
    PeterS

    Even if Turnbull managed to wake up to reality (unlikely – it’s more likely a smokescreen) and do the right thing and scrap renewable energy targets, etc. (I repeat unlikely) it won’t be much good if ALP+Greens one day get back into power. All they will do is reinstate the renewables scam due to their ideology on man-made climate change. This is where a properly worded, legislated and enforced NEG could prevent any future government from ever again instigating a program to promote exorbitant power prices. This is why the NEG is a golden opportunity for the government not only to reduce power prices but to prevent them from going back up again under Labor and the Greens. If they fail to seize that opportunity then nothing changes and over the cliff we go in the coming years.

    50

    • #
      TdeF

      Peter, Turnbull’s NEG is nothing of the sort. The only thing guaranteed are higher power prices. Don’t be fooled by the name. Renewables are replaceables. Coal is free and far more powerful and far more reliable than the wind. The only thing reliable about solar is that there is none at night.

      91

      • #
        PeterS

        In that case we are all wasting out time.

        20

      • #
        PeterS

        If Turnbull’s version of the NEG does not guarantee lower prices in accordance with his agreement to accept all the recommendations of the ACCC findings then that makes Turnbull a big lxxr. In that case we are all wasting our time here. Either he is rolled and we get a real leader who will do the right thing or we end up crashing and burning in the end. Let’s wait and see what the details are for the NEG before we make final judgement. We don’t want to be like Shorten and make comments on something that we haven’t read yet.

        40

        • #
          el gordo

          Going into the election the government will need to show power bills are falling or the Coalition will become the Opposition.

          The NEG still has to be agreed to by the States and Territories, and with new Hele in the mix its unlikely to get up. So I am unconcerned, the agrarian socialists count this as a huge victory and the Coalition will be united for the election.

          This should start a debate on climate change, but I won’t hold my breath.

          PS: The coup has been called off thanks to the ACCC.

          30

          • #
            PeterS

            I think it would be very unrealistic to expect a NEG that levels the playing field for power generation, which would clearly mandate the removal of all RET schemes and subsidies, and at the same time expect the Labor states to agree and approve of such a NEG. So the only thing Turnbull can do if he’s serious and smart enough (I know it’s probably too much to ask) is to word the NEG along those lines and go to the election emphasising as if his life depended on it that it’s the only way to reduce power prices and the alternative approach from ALP+Greens would guarantee increasing prices. If the voters are awake the LNP would romp in a the next election and then they would have a strong mandate to force the NEG down the throats of the Labor states whether they like it or not. It would be very similar to what Howard did with the GST. He took the risk and he won. It’s uncertain whether Turnbull would take a similar risk now with the right sort of NEG. He doesn’t across as a politician who is that clever.

            40

            • #
              el gordo

              The NEG is doomed without new Hele, so Abbott’s new approach is to go looking for justification and the Oz is lighting the way with a Bjorn Lomborg piece.

              This is the debate the green/left don’t want.

              20

              • #
                TdeF

                You would think higher temperature HELE boilers were the solution to all. 6% more efficient. That’s it. So why not keep the old boilers or, if the savings are worthwhile, upgrade them?

                As we know from the Carnot cycle, the thermodynamic effiency of combustion engines goes up with temperature. Nothing more.

                It’s no excuse to blow up existing coal power stations and then argue that replacing them is too expensive and takes too long anyway. Then why blow them up in the first place?

                This whole story is just nuts. Since when was CO2 pollution? Since when was Hazelwood a ‘heavy polluter’? (Graham Lloyd) Who makes this up? Green script writers on commission from the UN?

                60

              • #
                el gordo

                The government should buy Liddell and revamp it, cheaper than building a new one, and if the present owners refuse to sell at any price, then obviously we need to consider our options.

                In my script, when the time comes around and they are about to close Liddell, I see the army going in to secure the power plant.

                Beijing is already making a thriller at Hazelwood, you can’t make this stuff up.

                40

              • #
                TdeF

                That’s the appalling effrontery of AGL

                “if the present owners refuse to sell at any price”

                They paid $0 for it and boasted about it. Now they will not consider selling a ‘worthless’ power plant for $250Million. Obviously they will get more for closing it.

                Explain how AGL will profit handsomely from destroying something worth at least $250million and you have the key to the puzzle. It’s all about forcing up energy prices and the RET, money for nothing. Triple the income of coal and no costs and the public have to buy the windmills. Highway robbery, courtesy of the Greens.

                Also, the government should demand back for $0 what was given away for $0. That is not ‘socialism’. Ridiculous. It was built by the people of NSW and entrusted to AGL who don’t want it. So take it back for exactly what they paid.

                80

              • #
                el gordo

                I blame Premier Gladys for everything.

                ‘AGL Energy said on Thursday that it had effectively bought the 2,000W Liddell coal-fired power station in the Hunter Valley for zero dollars.

                ‘The give-away by the NSW government – which completed the sale on Wednesday – was revealed by a triumphant AGL Energy while announcing its annual results.’

                REneweconomy 2014

                50

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          If it’s “crash and burn” then let’s get on with it. Recession. Depression. Unemployment. Financial failure. Poverty. Hunger. Riots.

          That’s the only way I can see of waking up the Australian electorate.

          All for the want of power.

          40

  • #
    RickWill

    The ACCC recommendation are inconsistent with regard to small scale and large scale ambient generation. They are recommending that small scale solar incentives be cut off and the States to take over the legacy commitments. On the other hand there is no recommendation to close down the incentives for the large scale solar and wind generators. They make comment that the cost of LGCs will fall but that relies in those generators not withholding certificates to ensure the price remains high. Rather than rely on market pricing for this market distortion why not abolish it as well. After all the wind project proponents say they have the lowest cost electricity – put it to the test.

    90

  • #
    Lance

    Logically, there is an alternative, even if it isn’t desirable.

    Allow industries, citizens, and government to “bid” for their operational hours based on the guaranteed availability of power. Couple the taxes allowed to that same schedule. In other words, if power isn’t available, no taxes are owed for any work or products produced during that time. No Power, no Taxes.

    It would be a survivalist economy, not a modern society, but the Govt would actually reap what they have sown.

    I shouldn’t like it a bit. Neither would any sane person. But it is a viable model given the constraints placed upon society by paper pushers who otherwise have no skin in the game.

    In the alternative, get Govt the H#ll out of the energy business and let the market determine what happens.

    But then, one might have to give up on the idea of Socialist Superiority and the benefits of Unicorn Farts and Rainbows. How quaint.

    30

  • #

    Maybe, just maybe, we might finally be peeking around the corner, not turning the corner yet, but just having a polite look to see if it’s okay to proceed.

    I wonder now, that as opinion softens a little, if AGL has the ‘cojones’ to perhaps back down a little, and gently re-introduce the Bayswater upgrade.

    It was originally proposed in 2009 to construct a two Unit (2 X 1000MW) USC on the existing Bayswater site by the previous owners Macquarie.

    All it would take would be not very much tweaking to change to two 1200MW Units.

    It was to be constructed alongside the existing Bayswater plant and operate as a second plant, and here I might suggest that it was meant as a replacement for Liddell at the time, also owned by MacGen. Once constructed, it would have been operational in time to close Liddell down, both plants, Liddell and Bayswater within line of sight of each other already.

    All the coal would now be at the one site, and the coal is already owned by the operators of the plant. They could proceed with that and once ready, then shut down Liddell.

    The same applies for the Mt. Piper extension, this plant owned by Energy Australia, also planned to be 2 x 1000MW alongside the existing Mt. Piper two Unit plant.

    Both Concept Plans were approved at the time, with all the work done, just waiting for the go-ahead.

    Perhaps now they might be revived by a courageous politician, and that’s why they might be peeking around that corner, looking for one of them first.

    Tony.

    Link to Bayswater Concept Plan – (perhaps just look at the first pdf document in the Environmental Assessment folio, 80 odd pages or so, but the info is in there about it)

    Link to Mt. Piper Concept Plan – (perhaps here the second pdf document in Volume i)

    130

    • #
      PeterS

      I think you are jumping the gun a little and being very optimistic. I’m not saying you are wrong – just that’s it’s too early to tell as yet what is going to happen. For starters we need to see the details of the NEG and then the reaction by the states. I do however sense we are at a point now that a big change could happen if Turnbull has the courage and the smarts to do it, which going by his past performance looks very doubtful. It would be a pleasant surprise though if he did come through with a good package for once. If he did and he pushed it hard with the people at the next election campaign the LNP should actually win by a landslide. Here’s hoping it all turns out good.

      40

    • #
      TdeF

      Great. Most heartening.

      40

    • #
      pat

      TonyfromOz -

      that sounds like a good plan. here’s hoping it will come to pass.

      60

    • #
      el gordo

      Thanks Tony, good coverage.

      40

  • #
    Mark M

    What, Me Worry? – Alfred E. Neuman

    I have the best scientific advice available!

    Worry less about frost events with the #AWB Frost cover add-on.
    Our frost cover quoting finishes at the end of July, so be sure to get a quote or check out the new add-on cover at
    http://cropinsurance.awb.com.au/?utm_expid=.hXd_hU-bTq21utgInVSNRw.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FVGQboKTZ9T#

    Wait. What?

    “The number of very hot days per year are projected to increase across Australia, particularly in the sub-tropical and tropical regions, and the number of frosts are likely to decrease.”

    Further reading:

    CSIRO, Climate Change in Australia, Technical Report, 2007.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 3, Observations: surface and atmospheric climate change.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Chapter 19, Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change, Table 19.1 and p. 795.

    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Browse_by_Topic/ClimateChangeold/theClimate/temperatures

    20

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘This would be the highest global temperature rise recorded in recent PALAEOCLIMATE history.’

      Its called the Holocene.

      10

  • #
    Annie

    I’m sorry to hear that you have such horrible lurgies Jo. After some of your droll words yesterday I had hoped it meant that you were feeling better. I don’t know how you are managing to keep going. Please look after yourself and try to rest a bit; difficult with a family I know (been there, done that) but running the blog is a lot of extra effort.

    31

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The more I learn about Malcolm Turnbull the more he sounds like a real prince of a guy. Only I would spell prince a little differently.

    Sorry but that’s as politely as I can put it and stay out of trouble with Jo and some readers.

    On the other hand, maybe this will get me frowned upon anyway.

    70

    • #
      PeterS

      That’s OK Roy, we know what you mean and I agree 100%. Most of us thought that way the day he knifed Abbott in the back because we already knew at that point he was white-anting Abbott so consistently.

      40

  • #
    pat

    so many words…so much spin…read all:

    14 Jul: ABC: Malcolm Turnbull ticks off his energy to-do list but obstacles remain
    7.30 By Laura Tingle
    A win for coal?
    This is the idea which the Nationals, and coal supporters, have characterised as a win for those seeking subsidies for coal.
    As the Prime Minister says, the proposal is actually technology neutral. The projects that would get the nod would be the best on offer.
    If that happens to be coal, so be it.
    But as ACCC Chairman Rod Sims observed this week, the only people putting forward proposals for new power plants to the commission were talking about plants driven by forms of energy other than coal.
    The technology-neutrality echoes the national energy guarantee scheme put forward by the Energy Security Board…

    ‘Reverse auctioning’ power?
    This brings us back to the Prime Minister’s answer on Wednesday to the timing question.
    Mr Turnbull said he was “very attracted” to the option put forward by the ACCC “because it works in a similar way to a reverse auction concept that we’ve been looking at with AEMO”.
    This scheme he said involved AEMO identifying a gap in forecast dispatchable power and asking for bids “to fill that gap and then have, in effect, a reverse auction”.
    “It’s a technique used in many other markets around the world, but it does require that intervention to support the bringing in of new firmed or dispatchable power. When I say firmed or dispatchable power, for everyone’s benefit, what we’re talking about is energy that’s available on demand.”
    “So, that could be many different types. That could be coal, it could be gas, it could be hydro, it could be battery, it could be biomass. There’s no doubt others as well.”
    In other words, the government is already working actively on this concept as part of its energy plans…

    The great irony though is that, if a coal-fired power station were to be built, it is much more likely this would happen in NSW, rather than Queensland, given planning approvals rest with the states. NSW also currently has the biggest energy shortfall.
    The Nats want a coal-fired power station in far north Queensland.
    This week, the Prime Minister may have been able to add two more ticks to his to do list. But appeasing Queensland may still require a bit more work.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-14/turnbull-ticks-off-the-energy-boxes-laura-tingle/9992126

    10

  • #
    pat

    13 Jul: AFR: Refurbish old coal-fired power stations with taxpayer support, Coalition MPs say
    by Andrew Tillett
    As Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack declared the competition watchdog’s proposal had given the green light to supporting new coal investment, Liberal and National MPs argue the government should also guarantee ageing power stations that underpin the electricity grid with baseload power to squeeze a few more years out of them.
    “We can’t keep these things going forever but at the same time we’ve got to try to keep them going as long as we can,” NSW Liberal MP Craig Kelly told AFR Weekend…
    “Coal has to be part of the mix. We’ve got plenty of it, we’re exporting plenty of it, why don’t we use more of it for our domestic power needs?” Mr McCormack told Sky News.

    While Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is attracted to the underwriting proposal, which is expected to go to cabinet later this year, he has stopped short of endorsing it to support coal.

    Nationals frontbencher Keith Pitt said there was potential for the scheme to also be used to extend the life of coal-fired power stations already operating, “particularly if we want to add capacity to an existing station”.
    “They are the easier ones because you don’t need development approvals and the community is used to them,” Mr Pitt told AFR Weekend.
    Mr Pitt said he believed coal remained competitive, especially given the demand for reliable baseload power it provided.

    His Nationals colleague Andrew Gee warned he would not support the separate National Energy Guarantee – which will require energy retailers to meet reliability standards and emissions reductions targets – if the government did not implement the ACCC’s recommendations.
    “We have some major power users in central western NSW, which collectively employ thousands of people, and without the Australian government guaranteeing baseload power there is a real risk of investors walking away from them in the longer term,” he said.

    South Australian MP Tony Pasin told Sky News the government should be looking at underwriting support for existing power stations to help bring power prices down.
    “From my perspective it’s been clear from early days we need to extend the life of our coal fleet for as long as possible to enable the new forms of technology to enter the mix and enter the mix at a price point that is affordable and competitive,” he said.

    Mr Turnbull and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg’s more immediate focus is gaining the states’ support to back the NEG but are facing mounting hostility from left-wing activist groups.
    Greenpeace and GetUp will launch a TV advertising blitz in Victoria and Queensland next week targeting the Labor energy ministers in those states to reject the NEG…
    “The NEG is worse than no policy at all,” Greenpeace campaigner Charlotte Cox said.
    “It’s emission reductions target of 26 per cent is lower than what would be achieved with the current build and investment in renewable energy that the states are doing.”
    https://www.afr.com/news/refurbish-old-coalfired-power-stations-with-taxpayer-support-coalition-mps-say-20180713-h12mok

    20

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Kalamazoo ??

    Must be an Australian thing.

    We often used Timbuktu as the far off place of interest.
    Now I’ll go back to reading.

    20

  • #
    pat

    imagine how cold records would be smashed if we hadn’t had all that CAGW! only ABC reporting the -7.3 degrees recorded at a farm outside Warwick:

    14 Jul: ABC: Frosty morning as sub-zero temperatures leave southern Queensland shivering
    The coolest spot was at Wellcamp Airport in Toowoomba which recorded -6.6 degrees Celsius.
    The thermometer dipped to -5C in Oakey and Applethorpe, while in Dalby and Warwick it fell to -4C.

    ***On farmer Wayne Jensen’s place just outside Warwick, he recorded a low of -7.3 degrees.
    The cold froze his irrigation hoses and left new crops of oats encased in ice.

    Further down the road in Stanthorpe, photographer Sandra McEwan said her wet hair iced up after she washed it…ETC
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-14/frosty-morning-as-big-chill-hits-southern-queensland/9992294

    14 Jul: Warwick Daily News: COLDEST IN YEARS: Warwick hasn’t been this freezing since…
    by Marian Faa
    WARWICK woke to the coldest temperatures it has seen in four years this morning.
    If you cast your mind back to 2014, that is the last time winters temperatures dropped to the icy -4.9 degrees that greeted us this morning…
    But Warwick photographer Chris McFerran reported freezing -6.4 temperatures along the Condamine River where he was out braving the elements.

    Bureau of Meteorology forecaster Chris Joseph said the figures stand out on the charts.
    “It’s been pretty cold down that way with a lot of frost.”

    Applethorpe reached -5.1 degrees and Stanthorpe was even colder at -6.1 degrees.
    Over the day, Warwick will reach a top of 17 degrees which is only a little below average for this time of the year.
    But evenings are when the temperatures plummet according to Mr Joseph.
    “It is just the night-time temperatures that are around 4-5 degrees below average for this time of year,’ he said…
    https://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/news/coldest-in-years-warwick-hasnt-been-this-freezing-/3467062/

    14 Jul: 9News: AAP: Qld shivers as temperatures plummet
    Wellcamp Airport, just west of Toowoomba, recorded the state’s coldest temperature with a low of minus 6.4 degrees Celsius at 6.42am.
    Nearby Oakey recorded a low of minus 6.3C just before 7am.
    The cold weather pushed well up into Queensland with the outback town of Blackall dropping to 1.2C while Lochington, near Emerald, was just 0.5C at 7.11am.
    Even Rockhampton, up on the state’s central coast, dropped to a low of 6.5C just before 7am.
    The Darling Downs and the Granite Belt were the coldest regions of the state generally, with Dalby, Applethorpe and Miles all well below freezing…

    Roma, west of Brisbane, was also down to a chilly minus 4.2C overnight…
    Coolangatta on the southern end of the Gold Coast dropped to 3.7C while Sunshine Coast airport also went below 5C with a low of 4.9C…
    https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/07/14/12/53/qld-shivers-as-temperatures-plummet

    50

  • #
    pat

    comment in moderation re ABC: Frosty morning as sub-zero temperatures leave southern Queensland shivering:

    14 Jul: SunshineCoastDaily: Coast shivers through start of 72-hour big freeze
    PARTS of the Sunshine Coast have awoken to apparent temperatures of below 2C and widespread frosts this morning.
    It felt like 1.9C at the Sunshine Coast airport about an hour ago, with the actual temperature falling to 4.9C at 5.30am.

    Nambour was just 4.8C at 6.45am while Maleny dipped below 5C about 6am.
    It is significantly colder north of the Coast, with Gympie a freezing -0.3C earlier this morning. Currently, it is sitting at just 1C.
    Inland communities are battling record lows with areas just west of Toowoomba hitting -6C…
    https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/coast-shivers-through-72-hour-big-freeze/3466987/

    13 Jul: Gympie Times: BIG FREEZE: Cold weekend could set a record for Gympie
    by JOSH PRESTON
    The Bureau of Meteorology forecasts the cold snap already felt around the region to continue for at least the next five days, with early morning temps of 2C and possible frost today and tomorrow to contend for the year’s record minimum so far.
    The official BoM website has Gympie mornings failing to exceed 5C until at least next Friday, averaging lower than Bundaberg, Hervey Bay and Brisbane but not quite matching Kingaroy.

    BoM forecaster Chris Joseph said Gympie could see a new record depending on the movement of cold and dry winds.
    “It will be very cold at night time through to (the middle of) next week,” Mr Joseph said.
    “(Temperatures) will be very close to the lowest of the year depending on the cold air from the high pressure system moving up from Victoria.”…

    He said daytime temperatures were “very close” to the July average, but nighttime lows were “about 4 degrees below”.
    https://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/big-freeze-cold-weekend-could-set-a-record-for-gym/3466428/

    20

  • #

    Coal fired power has this ‘perceived’ problem that if one of those large Units fails, it takes a lot out of the system in one huge chunk, and if you read that bloke at that renewables site, that’s why they are useless in his terms.

    So, then, what actually happens when one of them fails? Does the whole Country just stop? Does anyone really notice, until three days later when his nibs at that renewables site finally finds out and rushes to add to his tally of hundreds of failures since the start of the year with another Post on how poorly they perform when compared to those wonderful wind and solar plants.

    Well, one of them did fail, yesterday, at around 6PM, right on the peak power time, right when all the power they can muster was needed the most. Unit Three at the Eraring plant dropped out, taking 700MW right out of the grid, right at the time of most need.

    Now, I’m not going to write the sequence out all over again, so you can read it at the link below.

    However, what happened was that as it failed, in fact, just before it failed, they had measures in place and coming on line to cover that loss.

    They spun up one Unit, (and then almost immediately, two more Units) at Tumut Three pumped storage Hydro, the fastest reacting Units there are, with power available almost as soon as the water is let through the ‘gate’ up near the dam, and rushes downhill to the turbine and then fires up the generator.

    At the same time, Three Units at the Uranquinty OCGT gas fired plant were also spinning up, a little slower than the hydro Units, but still on line fast.

    As this was happening, Eraring was going down, so that by the time it was back to zero, the replacement power was in place.

    I have the sequence for the full scenario at the link, with explaining images as well.

    So, even though coal fired power has this ‘perceived’ problem, there are ways it can be quite easily handled.

    Oh, and why not just use wind and solar power?

    Yeah, right. Wind and both solar (plants and rooftop) were delivering only 1.3% of what was being used at that time, peak power.

    When that bloke at that renewables site catches on in a day or two, well, ho hum, all done and dusted and no one even noticed.

    Link to Post – Australian Daily Electrical Power Generation Data – Friday 13th July 2018

    Tony.

    80

    • #
      Dennis

      Thank you Tony.

      I noticed the following at the linked website you provided …

      MOSCOW (SR) – Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has warned the Obama administration against adopting further socialism, saying Russian history clearly proves it is a recipe for failure. “Any fourth grade history student knows socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history,” said Putin. “President Obama and his fellow Democrats are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own economy.” … Read more plus comments: Click on Image or use this URL: http://wp.me/pJrS-3pj

      20

      • #

        Dennis,

        that’s an old (and I mean old) Post from our site dating back to February 2009. It’s SATIRE from a site we used to copy posts from, now defunct I think, but it was always so popular, so the site owner, (my home site that is) put it in the ‘sidebar’ at our site.

        Be aware it is satire.

        Tony.

        30

  • #
    Wayne Job

    Coal may end up the new green,a couple of researchers have discovered a way using some cheap polymers of turning fly ash from power plants into cement.
    Cement making uses a lot of energy and coal plants may be a blessing in disguise.

    40

  • #
    Robber

    The NEG is still a guarantee to reduce carbon burning. Notice how the apologists now talk about “firming” capacity like batteries and pumped hydro, to backup intermittent wind/solar. So even more costly investments to replace something that was affordable and reliable. And as Tony highlights, wind/solar (incl rooftop) are still only delivering 10% of our electricity demand. What will reliable and affordable look like when that share doubles or triples?

    40

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    Back our power plant, Alinta tells Canberra
    The Australian-16 hours ago
    The Hong Kong-controlled Alinta, owner of the Loy Yang B coal power station in Victoria, said it could bring on generation quickly if it received the right signals …

    ***wondered about the final para ’til I saw the piece comes from CNBC:

    13 Jul: HellenicShippingNews: CNBC: Coal is bucking trade war fears as China’s demand surges
    Benchmark Australian thermal coal prices have risen 40 percent this year so far, breaking through $120 per metric ton for the first time since 2012.
    “We think the jump in the coal price has been a response to an unusually hot summer in China and solid economic growth in the first half of the year,” said Caroline Bain, chief commodities economist at consultancy, Capital Economics.

    A hotter-than-usual summer drives up demand for air-conditioning.
    The heatwave also dried up water reservoirs, hitting hydroelectricity power output…
    Energy giant BP said in its benchmark annual Statistical Review of World Energy that the share of coal used in power generation is 38 percent — practically unchanged from 1997…

    J.P. Morgan said in a recent note that growth in China’s power generation was up 8 percent from January to April — more than double its forecast of just 3 percent. The growth was due to an increase for thermal power, the bank added…
    Other than China, demand from Japan and emerging regions in Southeast Asia has also supported coal prices. ***That’s come as supplies have tightened due to fervent campaigning from environmentalists that has dried up funding and investment in the sector.
    https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/coal-is-bucking-trade-war-fears-as-chinas-demand-surges/

    30

    • #
      pat

      14 Jul: HellenicShippingNews: PlattsL Chinese H1 2018 coal imports hit 3-year high of 146 million mt
      China imported 146 million mt of coal and lignite in the first half of 2018, up 9.9% from the previous year and a three-year high, according to preliminary data released Friday by the General Administration of Customs.
      In June China imported 25.5 million mt of coal, up 17.9% on the year and 14% on the month from 22.3 million mt in May, the data showed…
      The General Administration of Customs will release the finalized June import data July 23.

      13 Jul: HellenicShippingNews: Bloomberg: Hurting for Buyers, U.S. Coal Miners Are Learning to Love India
      India almost tripled its imports of the rock from America in the first quarter from a year earlier, helping fuel its fast-growing economy and making it the largest foreign buyer of U.S. coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration…
      The U.S. may export 104 million tons of coal in 2018, up 7.2 percent from a year ago, the EIA forecast in its July Short-Term Energy Outlook published Tuesday. Through April, India had brought in almost 7 million tons, approaching a fifth of all U.S. exports of the fossil fuel. The next largest customers included South Korea, Japan, Brazil and the Netherlands…

      India’s appetite for foreign coal is increasing at a time when the country’s own production of thermal coal is struggling to keep up with the fast-growing demand from its power sector, according to the EIA. What’s more, it’ll probably drive most of the global growth in metallurgical coal demand in coming years as India tries to meet ambitious steel-capacity goals, Mark Levin, an analyst at Seaport Global Securities LLC, said in a note Tuesday…

      In particular, India’s efforts to curb the use of petroleum coke as a fuel have created an opening for thermal coal from Northern Appalachia, Cosgrove said.
      “Thermal coal imports from the U.S. are increasingly making sense for Indian users,” said Bharat Rohra, chief executive officer of Jindal Power, citing the high heat content and low levels of ash in some U.S. coal. “These two properties make it economical for use in blending with Indian coal.”
      Meanwhile, Indian steel companies are looking to reduce their dependence on Australian metallurgical coal, according to Seshagiri Rao, joint managing director of the country’s top mill, JSW Steel Ltd…
      https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/hurting-for-buyers-u-s-coal-miners-are-learning-to-love-india/

      10

  • #
    pat

    13 Jul: HellenicShippingNews: Xinhua: Indonesia’s coal output rises in H1 amid price hike
    Indonesia carried out vigorous coal production in the first half of this year as global prices rose to a higher level.
    Indonesian energy and mineral resources ministry said on Thursday that the country substantially produced 163.44 million tons of coal from January to June, up 18 percent on year.

    On export, Indonesia shipped 94.68 million tons of coal offshore during the first half of this year, spokesman of the ministry Agung Pribadi said…
    Indonesia set an export target of 371 million tons of coal this year, according to him.
    On output target, Indonesia looks to produce about 425 million tons of coal this year, according to the ministry.

    Indonesia is the world’s top thermal coal exporter with its coal reserve of about 26.2 billion tons, according to the ministry.
    https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/indonesias-coal-output-rises-in-h1-amid-price-hike/

    30

  • #
    pat

    9 Jul: NikkeiAsianReview: In ironic twist, drive for clean energy creates Asian coal boom
    Public outcry over dirty fuel overshadowed by power needs of growing economies
    by SHOTARO TANI
    JAKARTA — Coal, one of the world’s most polarizing commodities, has now become an Asian irony. Efforts to curb use of the so-called black diamond in the West have been a boon for coal companies in the East, more so now that the benchmark price for thermal coal exceeded $120 per ton in July, the highest since 2012.
    No one was surprised in March when Tambang Batubara Bukit Asam, one of Indonesia’s largest coal producer, posted a 123% year-on-year jump in net profit to 4.4 trillion rupiah( $325 million) for the period ended December. That was because only a week prior to the results, Adaro Energy, the country’s second-largest coal miner, posted a 45% surge in net profits to $483 million.
    The common denominator for both companies was rising coal prices…

    Bukit Asam is reported to be mulling acquisition of a new mine, while Adaro said that “if a good opportunity arise, we will look into” acquiring new coal assets. And they are not the only ones.
    ABM Investama, an Indonesian-based investment company that focuses on the energy sector, has set aside $500 million for acquiring new mining areas. State power utility PLN is reportedly in the process of acquiring eight mines in Kalimantan and Sumatra…

    This was probably not what environmentalists foresaw after 196 countries and regions, albeit now without the U.S., signed the Paris climate accord in 2015…

    Even so, energy demand in Asia continues to grow, and both Bukit Asam and Adaro are doing their part to provide power to some 65 million people in member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations who are without electricity.
    Asian financial institutions are also still willing to finance coal-related projects. According to Rainforest Action Network, a U.S. nongovernmental organization, China Construction Bank has been the largest financier of coal mining from 2015 through 2017. It was followed by other Chinese banks, including Bank of China, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Agricultural Bank of China. The banks were also the main backers of coal power…

    “For the emerging economies in Southeast Asia, providing affordable electricity remain priorities for governments to support the robust and energy-intensive economic growth,” said Shirley Zhang, principle analyst at Wood Mackenzie. “Without a binding carbon commitment, coal offers baseload supply at the lowest cost for at least another 15 years for those countries. This is fundamentally driving coal’s growth in this region.”

    The International Energy Agency forecasts that by 2040, coal will account for 40% of the energy mix to support the region’s economic and population growth, and mining companies are taking full advantage of the high coal prices which, ironically, were brought about by the West’s push to phase out coal…

    Combined coal consumption in five Southeast Asian countries — Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam — increased 10.4% in the two years to 2017, while India saw a 7.2% rise.
    “We believe that long-term fundamental [demand] for coal is [strongly] supported by developing countries in Southeast Asia, India, China and even OECD North Asia countries, all of which still depend on coal for electricity generation,” said Garibaldi Thohir, CEO of Adaro, in a written response to a question from the Nikkei Asian Review. “Despite [the] renewable energy push, thermal coal will still be preferred due to its affordability and abundant reserves in the region.”
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Commodities/In-ironic-twist-drive-for-clean-energy-creates-Asian-coal-boom

    20

    • #
      el gordo

      Malcolm must know about this.

      ‘Combined coal consumption in five Southeast Asian countries — Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam — increased 10.4% in the two years to 2017, while India saw a 7.2% rise.’

      10

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Extract from todays Australian by Bjorn Lomborg
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/abbott-is-right-paris-climate-treaty-fails-to-fight-global-warming/news-story/c983e326b92e5bd37962e3d7dc3e593b

    While we know he is all in on anthropogenic climate change at least he’s a realist!

    Political language on climate change often amounts to empty puffery: bold promises that are not going to be delivered and aspirational rhetoric that proves impossible to achieve.
    It is therefore remarkable that Tony Abbott has acknowledged Australia would not have signed the Paris Agreement if he had known in 2015 that the US would withdraw, and that trying to reach national targets would damage the Australian economy.
    Internationally, very few politicians have admitted the inherent failings of the Paris treaty, but the truth is that it was always oversold.
    This begins with the treaty itself, which includes the fiction that pledges under the agreement will somehow keep the planet’s temperature rises to 2C or even 1.5C.
    The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show that achieving it would require nothing less than the entire planet abandoning the use of every fossil fuel by February 7, 2021. Given our reliance on fossil fuels, that would mean we stop cooling and heating our homes, stop all air travel, and the world’s farmers stop making half the world’s food, produced with fertiliser almost exclusively made from fossil fuels. The list goes on.
    As for the less stringent 2C target, keeping the global temperature rise below that requires a reduction in emissions during this century of almost 6000 billion tonnes. The UN body that oversees the Paris Agreement has estimated that even if every single country (including the US) were to achieve every national promise by 2030, the total greenhouse gas cut would be equivalent to just 60 billion tonnes of CO2.
    This means that even if completely successful, with the US rejoining tomorrow and every nation doing every single thing promised, the Paris treaty makes 1 per cent of progress towards the “easier” target of 2C.

    40

  • #
    pat

    Matt Canavan article, I believe, behind paywall:
    Labor’s energy policy would see us dwelling in caves
    The Australian-16 hours ago
    Shorten also described those who support coal-fired power generation as knuckle-dragging cave-dwellers. I don’t think I am a knuckle-dragger …

    350.org: Petition Tell Japan’s major banks to stop funding coal
    Japan’s 3 biggest banks – Mizuho Financial Group, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group are the 1st, 2nd and 5th biggest lenders to coal development across the globe.
    Despite many international banks divesting from coal and strong resistance from local communities, Japanese banks committed $25 Billion to the construction of new coal plants worldwide with numerous projects in Indonesia, Vietnam and other developing countries during 2014-2017, putting at risk any hope of meeting the Paris climate goals…
    http://world.350.org/east-asia/divest-from-coal-en/

    Banktrack.org: Banks vs The Paris Agreement: Who’s still financing coal plant development?
    Introduction
    “Coal is dead” was the verdict in June 2017 from a senior executive at BlackRock, the world’s largest investment group. The coal industry may indeed be in decline, due to a combination of factors including the plummeting cost of renewable energy, tighter regulatory regimes and grassroots opposition to coal plants worldwide, but it is still far from down and out.

    According to data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker, while the number of new coal plants in the pre-construction phase around the world almost halved between 2015 and 2016, there are currently over 1,600 new coal plant units still in planning, predominantly in developing countries. If these were to be built, the world’s coal-fired power capacity would be expanded by more than 42%…

    This threat has been captured by the ‘Global Coal Exit List‘, published in full by urgewald during the 2017 UN Climate Summit in Bonn. It provides for the first time the list of the top 120 coal plant developers, a group of companies which together plan to build more than 550,000 MW of new, climate-busting, coal-fired power capacity, the equivalent of the combined coal fleets of India, the United States and Germany…

    BankTrack, urgewald, Friends of the Earth France, Re:Common and Rainforest Action Network have dug into the investment numbers to discover which commercial banks are financing these companies. Our research shows that between January 2014 and September 2017, the global banking sector provided and mobilised financing in excess of $600 billion for the top 120 coal plant developers, via lending and underwriting. And approaching half of this sum – $275 billion – has been provided since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, despite their coal plant development plans being fundamentally incompatible with the agreement’s objectives…
    The coal plant developer companies and their financial supporters are hereby unveiled – who would now argue against the financial blacklisting of these coal companies which are threatening us all?

    Rankings
    The table below present a breakdown of the commercial banks which have been the main financiers of the top 120 coal plant developers between January 2014 and September 2017. Lending figures cover the project finance and corporate finance disbursed to these companies, while underwriting figures cover the issuance of shares and bonds for the same companies.
    For a full description of the methodology used, you can read this explainer (LINK)…ETC
    https://www.banktrack.org/coaldevelopers/

    10

  • #
    Stephen Richards

    Considering is a long way from building. It’s a pre-election word for don’t throw me out and i’ll think about cheap power.

    Aftere election it’s ……………

    GOTCHA FOOLS

    50

  • #
    cedarhill

    Australia is headed down the road to Venezuela. People only notice the process when the public becomes aware of the erosion of the energy sector.

    10

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall, Letters to the editor:

    Brexit battles and the Trump factor
    The Times-13 hours ago
    Sir, In proposing that the UK rely on renewables for 50 per cent of electricity supplies by 2030, with no additional nuclear power (“Boost green … July 10), the national infrastructure committee is embracing a high-risk policy…

    found elsewhere:

    14 Jul: UK Times: Letters to the editor
    Letter Donald Miller: In proposing that the UK rely on renewables for 50 per cent of electricity supplies by 2030, with no additional nuclear power, the national infrastructure committee is embracing a high-risk policy. The day their proposal was released, power output from wind turbines met only 3 per cent of supplies at time of maximum demand and solar roughly the same. This was the highest output from wind turbines over the week, output on other days being 1 per cent or less at times of maximum demand.

    An increase in renewable energy from 30 per cent (the present figure) to 50 per cent of the total energy system would do nothing to guarantee that electricity was always available. This requires adequate backup from gas or nuclear plant which can be relied on to generate when the wind does not blow and the sun is not shining. Further developments in battery technology can certainly be expected, but there are no grounds today for believing that this or any other energy storage technology will ever achieve the capacity and economics required to meet demand for the extended periods required.

    While costs are vital for electricity, reliability of supply is even more so. Experience of building Hunterston and Torness nuclear stations confirms that both objectives can be achieved with nuclear.

    In the 1990s, when 60 per cent of Scotland’s electricity came from nuclear, electricity prices were among the lowest in Europe. Experience suggests that it would be a mistake to base energy policy on the inflated prices agreed by the government for the new Hinkley station.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/brexit-battles-and-the-trump-factor-st5vfjhpg

    10

  • #
    pat

    read all – ***seems the Germans aren’t well-informed about the lifespan and disposal problems either:

    13 Jul: Deutsche Welle: Melanie Hall: Wind energy’s big disposal problem
    Germany has more than 28,000 wind turbines — but many are old and by 2023 more than a third must be decommissioned. Disposing of them is a huge environmental problem. ***Expert Jan Tessmer tells DW he’s optimistic.
    DW: Dr Tessmer, disposing of wind turbines is extremely difficult. Their concrete bases go as deep as 30 meters into the ground, and are hard to fully remove, while the rotor blades contain glass and carbon fibers — they give off dust and toxic gases so burning them isn’t an option. Some environmentalists say this problem is being swept under the carpet, what do you think?

    Jan Tessmer: I actually think everything is relative. Of course it is an issue and of course you don’t get anything for free, but you always have to see it in relation, what are the values you get out of the wind turbine and I think yes, some efforts have to be made to efficiently, and also without environmental damage, get turbines recycled or out of the ground.
    There are huge concrete foundations that have to be gotten out but I don’t see there being any principal problem that could not be overcome. It will probably be a challenge for technology. It will really be an issue over the next years and decades probably to get old turbines off the field, so I expect industry will find technologies to cope with it…

    DW: Do you think that environmentalists are still mostly pro wind energy or do you think there’s been a pushback regarding the difficulties in disposing of wind turbines?

    Jan Tessmer: I think we have more and more problems with the issue of acceptance. I wouldn’t say it’s because of the disposal issue, I think it’s more on issues like noise or the lightning effects during the night, that people feel disturbed. I don’t think people think so much about the disposal issue, although it might be important and I also think that we have to address this issue.
    From my point of view, what I feel from the publicity, ***I don’t get much pressure on that fact [disposing of wind turbines]. We don’t have any projects on that, and in fact it’s a mirror of the situation of the need that is communicated. If people would think it’s a very necessary task to do [research on wind turbine disposal], then they would ask us for projects to do so and then we would do that. We are a publically-funded research organization and we feel it is our mission to work on topics that are asked for. But since this issue is not so much addressed, we haven’t done anything there yet. That might change.

    Dr Jan Tessmer is co-ordinator on wind energy research at the German Aerospace Center (DLR).
    https://www.dw.com/en/wind-energys-big-disposal-problem/a-44665439

    10

  • #
    pat

    includes plenty of quotes from critics, not excerpted:

    13 Jul: CTV: Canadian Press: Ontario government cancels 758 renewable energy contracts, says it will save millions
    TORONTO — Ontario’s new Progressive Conservative government is cancelling 758 renewable energy contracts, in what it says is an effort to reduce electricity bills in the province.
    Energy Minister Greg Rickford said the move will save provincial ratepayers $790 million — a figure industry officials dispute, saying it will just mean job losses for small business…

    “For 15 years, Ontario families and businesses have been forced to pay inflated hydro prices so the government could spend on unnecessary and expensive energy schemes,” Rickford said. “Those days are over.”…

    “We clearly promised we would cancel these unnecessary and wasteful energy projects as part of our plan to cut hydro rates by 12 per cent for families, farmers and small businesses,” Rickford said.
    “In the past few weeks, we have taken significant steps toward keeping that promise.”…

    Earlier this week, the Tory government said it would introduce legislation next week to cancel a wind project in eastern Ontario that is just weeks away from completion.
    WPD Canada, the company behind the green energy project that has been under development for nearly a decade, said the cancellation could cost more than $100 million and warned that the dispute could be headed to the courts
    https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-government-cancels-758-renewable-energy-contracts-says-it-will-save-millions-1.4012450

    13 Jul: Newsday: East End forum on potential offshore wind turbine sites turns tense
    Representatives of the commercial fishing industry worried about the potential impact on their industry if the federal government selects sites off eastern Long Island’s southern coast for wind farm development
    By Vera Chinese
    The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in April released maps for possible lease sites including two large swathes off eastern Long Island’s southern coast, one south of Great South Bay and one off the coast of New Jersey, all in what’s known as the New York Bight area. The federal agency, which acts as a landlord for sites located from 3 to 200 miles from shore, is seeking input on the most appropriate locations.

    The forum, held Wednesday at the Montauk Community Center, was dominated by commercial fishermen who largely said none of the proposed sites were fitting.
    “These should be removed off our fishing grounds completely,” said Bonnie Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association…
    https://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/east-end-forum-on-potential-offshore-wind-turbine-sites-turns-tense-1.19805387

    10

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    ‘For me, and others, it will be a disaster’
    Fraser Coast Chronicle-21 hours ago
    Shew and his neighbours in the Sladevale community fear they will suffer reflective glare, as each of the 2.6m solar panels have been designed to tilt up and …

    comment #2762847 at Catallaxy Files:

    Landowners in stoush over massive Darling Downs solar farm
    Des Houghton, The Courier-Mail
    July 14, 2018 12:00am
    WHEN Tom Shew retired, he headed for the hills outside Warwick on the Darling Downs, choosing a home site overlooking the picturesque Freestone Valley.
    But his idyllic views of lush farmland and dairy cattle are about to be blotted out by 250,000 large solar panels.
    And it’s a story that’s about to be played out throughout regional Queensland.

    Shew, 71, a horticultural scientist and educator, says he will have virtually no other views except the panels once the $125 million Freestone Valley project is complete.
    “I will see solar panels from my living room, the bedroom, the rumpus room and the patio,” he says. “For me, and many others, it will be a disaster.”
    Shew and his neighbours in the Sladevale community fear they will suffer reflective glare, as each of the 2.6m solar panels have been designed to tilt up and down to follow the path of the sun. Each panel has a little motor…
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2018/07/14/open-forum-july-14-2018/comment-page-1/

    13 Jul: WSPA: Incentives for solar panels ending soon
    by Anne Maxwell
    GREENVILLE, S.C. – Solar panels are set to become more expensive for Duke Energy Carolians customers. A statewide solar incentive will soon be put on hold.
    Act 236 was passed unanimously the General Assembly in 2014 and signed into law by Gov. Nikki Haley. Now that it’s met its goals, incentives are old hold, and stakeholders are working to see whether they can extend them. In the meantime, thousands of jobs and the future of the solar industry in the Upstate hang in the balance…

    Most people with the rooftop technology stay connected to the grid, so they can have a backup power source when the sun isn’t shining. It’s the responsibility of the utility, and its customers, to maintain the grid.
    “There are costs, fixed costs that are involved…that you do have to manage as part of the system,” said Duke Energy spokesperson Ryan Mosier.
    Under Act 236, net metering would be in place until privately-owned solar panels made up two percent of the utility’s energy market in the state. Duke Energy Carolinas customers in the Upstate reached that target well ahead of its deadline. Now, stakeholders are working through the next steps.

    Legislation that would have extended the program failed earlier this year…
    https://www.wspa.com/news/incentives-for-solar-panels-ending-soon/1301494313

    10

  • #
    Antoine D'Arche

    hope you feel well soon Jo.
    Turnbull will NEVER sign off on building coal power. We was given the PM job BECAUSE he wouldn’t and Abbott would. He’s a puppet. Or more accurately a muppet, with a hand shoved up his arse.

    20

    • #

      What if he could sign off on coal while he keeps the the gravy train running for the unreliables?

      Friends feeding off the teat would complain but “hey”. Our electrical grid would be kept alive by a levitating pool of money money money money…
      Some funds could be drawn from general coffers as well so that our electric bills may appear to stay the same. The whole nation gets poorer.

      30

      • #
        Antoine D'Arche

        Maybe, but only when his masters accept that the AGW hoax has had it’s day, and the trading markets cease to generate a profit.
        Or when the populace revolts and Turnbull is forced to. But we’re not there yet, by any stretch. I thought the grid would crash due to excessive demand last summer, but they had Swanbank fired up, and so it struggled through.

        00

  • #
    gowest

    All this posturing about coal fired power stations is BS … it’s just to get the voters onside before the next election – Rudd Gillard Abbot and Turnbull have done it to us now – as soon as they get voted in they go back to business as usual – lets shaft the taxpayers to get more revenue for our mates…. or some another reason – presumably they or their masters are making a lot of money for them to persist this way over such a long period of time.
    I think a composite before election / after election set of videos would get more action. Fed and State politicians have got away with this lie for far too long.

    00