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

Let’s close coal plants so AGL can triple its profits

Last year AGL made $539 million net profit. This year, $1,600 million. What’s not to like about closing Hazelwood?

AGL, Profits 2018. Graph.

Profit statements confirm what we’ve said — closing cheap coal boosts profits for generators. No wonder AGL won’t sell Liddell for a hundred million dollars. It also shows us that the big “bubble” in electricity prices is from the doubling of wholesale electricity costs. These corporates are reaping it in far above costs. The way to cut wholesale prices is to get rid of the RET, and fix our old coal.

[ABC] Its underlying profit, which excludes one-off items and changes in value in investments and hedging positions, rose 28 per cent to $1.02 billion, at the upper end of the company’s guidance.

Even Andy Vesey admits the coal closures helped AGL:

“This increase in prices in the broader electricity market has mostly been a result of the abrupt closure of non-AGL power stations such as Hazelwood in 2017 and Northern in 2016 and higher input costs from coal and gas,” AGL chief executive Andy Vesey said.

But watch the pea. Who is trying to blame high profits on higher input costs?

Then he tosses a dead dandelion to screwed consumers:

In this environment, we recognise that many Australian households are facing cost-of-living pressures because of the higher energy bills that have resulted from higher market prices.”

Vesey talks about renewables investments as if he is doing a favor to the country:

Mr Vesey said AGL would invest more than $2 billion to boost generation capacity.

What he didn’t say was they were boosting the exact kind of generation that makes things worse for customers, but will help him buy another yacht. See below:

The projects include Australia’s largest wind farm at Coopers Gap in Queensland, a dual-fire power plant at Barker Inlet in South Australia and boosting capacity at the Bayswater coal fired power station.

A final investment decision on a gas import hub in Victoria’s Westernport bay would be made in the next 12 months.

Mr Vesey said the company supported the Federal Government’s National Energy Guarantee for further investment in new generation projects across a range of technologies including gas, pumped hydro and battery storage.

If Mr Vesey likes the NEG and wants “policy certainty” it’s a sure bet that we, the people, don’t:

“While wholesale electricity prices have already begun to fall over the past 12 months, policy certainty is key to encouraging the additional generation supply that will place further downward pressure on prices and benefit consumers over time,” he said.

Where’s the free money? Wholesale electricity prices.

All of AGLs generators are being paid a lot more than they need to be, thank Malcolm Turnbull:

A large part of the profit increase came from a $562 million gain on electricity hedging contracts which had lost $263 million the year before.

However, AGL’s standout division was wholesale power generation which reported a more than 30 per cent increase in margins on the back of higher prices.

h/t Dave B, Dennis.

 

 

 

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (71 votes cast)
Let's close coal plants so AGL can triple its profits, 9.6 out of 10 based on 71 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yd8z8fb2

192 comments to Let’s close coal plants so AGL can triple its profits

  • #

    Julia Gillard said of the green economy and sustainable development: “Big business is already on board!”

    Now we know what she meant.

    410

  • #
    John Watt

    Vesey says that prices have gone up due to closure of non-AGL coal fired stations i.e. due to a decrease in numbers of players in base load component of the competitive market. No great surprise…reduced competition results in higher prices. Meanwhile AEMO does not acknowledge this as a fault in the market it is being paid to operate. Malcolm forget the NEG and just fix the market. It’s not hard . You should find plenty of clues in the energy industry archives.

    170

  • #
    Robert R

    Stop Press……..Climate Change causes wealth!……….AGL makes $1600 million dollars!
    Who said the lefty elite didn’t know what they were doing!

    381

  • #

    [...] does this make for cheaper power prices? AGL triples profit after Hazelwood [...]

    30

  • #
    PeterS

    We already knew that AGL and other companies like it are closing down their coal fired power stations so they can “invest” more in renewables to make bigger profits for their shareholders and boost the bonuses of the executives of the company. I don’t actually blame them because that’s what private businesses are all about – making profit. It would be dam stupid if they didn’t. If they didn’t someone else would. So the only way it can be changed is simply to stop all schemes that allow this to happen. That means get rid of all RET schemes and subsidies. The onus is on the government to do this since no one else can do it. If they will not do it and since the ALP certainly will not do it then at the next election voters who care have only one option – vote 1 for any other party other than LNP, ALP or Greens. So in the end it all depends on how many people really care. If not enough do then let’s continue the way we are or have Shorten as PM, and get it over and done with; crash and burn.

    310

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Damn

      30

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Peter, I don’t agree that it’s a case of shifting investment.

      As I see it, AGL is keen to shut Liddell because the market environment created by governments makes Liddell less profitable to operate.

      If AGL wants to shut Liddell so that it can collect more subsidies, then it’s time to sack the government.

      120

      • #
        Geoff

        Has AGL been offered inducements, (low interest loans), to shut Liddell? If so, by whom?

        60

      • #
        PeterS

        Yes the government has created the environment for Liddell to be less profitable than renewables. AGL is in the business of selling power to consumers for a profit. Since it’s more profitable to sell power generated by renewables under the smokescreen of government energy policies then they are only doing what any business would do by adjusting their investment strategy to maximise their profits for their shareholders. To reverse that environment Turnbull’s energy policy has to go, along with him.

        50

  • #
    joseph

    Got to redistribute that wealth!

    61

  • #
    RobK

    On current trajectory, things will continue to get worse as there’s a scrabble for storage, more RE and gas backup. All the infrastructure will be poorly utilized as sporadic RE bounces surges of energy around the grid, punctuated by periods of no-show up and down the grid on random time scales from minutes to months. Even annual production will vary randomly. Expensive schemes will be required to modify demand just to manage when you cant buy energy as you want. This isnt going to be cheap, reliable or secure. It isnt even going to reduce overall co2 much and climate change even less.

    200

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Rob,

      How did you pack so much into so little?

      KK

      70

    • #
      RickWill

      You can have electric power when we say you can have power and the price will be set to guarantee a profit for all and every player in the supply chain.

      Anyone who has the funds needs to be planning their grid defection.

      60

      • #
        Bobl

        Don’t worry Rick I am planning mine. Small micro CHP combined with solar to reduce the fuel cost. Micro solar on the pumps. Just waiting for micro turbine CHP to get better.

        Right now I use micro solar to reduce my daytime load so I can sell every watt of the grid connect solar to Energy Australia at 60.1c per kWh…

        For the uninitiated micro solar is just a 160w solar panel connected to a regular 70AH car battery and a small inverter to run the load. This is good for loads up to around 400Wh per day,domestic pressure pumps, fridges, laptop and phone charging, radios and smaller tvs when not continuously used. Where the load can use 12v I dispense with the inverter. For example I have 12v outlets sprinkled about the house with car mobile phone adapters for charging all our devices. 12v capable TV is easy to get.

        IE it’s good for things that are low power and/or on standby most of the time. These things cost a lot but are really well suited to battery backed solar. When it’s dull for a while sometimes I need to hook up a battery charger.

        Yes 400Wh a day is only about 18 watts but at current cost each watt costs $2.62 per annum 400Wh or so a day off the bill saves $50 per year, buts what Is better is that feed in. 18 watts over around 8 hours per day means you can make $52 extra in solar feed in. At my feed in (60.1) that buys me 150kWh more of their electricity. Using these tricks my household consumption during solar producing hours is almost zero, ever solar watt gets sent to Energy Australia.

        Why do I use 8 hours – because you make/save money on any generation over 18 watts. While the average solar generation is equivalent to 5 hours at nameplate, the generation is more than 18 watts for around 8 hours or more most of the time, even when it’s dull.

        Finally my micro solar is the difference between paying for electricity and them paying me. This means no electricity bills… ain’t capitalism wonderful. (Not good for people who don’t have solar though). Even if the micro solar was a cost, the satisfaction of sending the power company a bill is just too seductive to give up.

        If Jo is wiling to publish it, I’m thinking of writing an article on how to fully exploit grid connect solar.

        30

        • #

          Bobl — I’m very interested in “off grid” or unsubsidized solar.

          I have to point out though that the 60c feed in tariff, while legal, is taking money from neighbors for no service returned. It’s thankfully no longer available to new solar customers. It will be a great day for the average householder when those contracts finally expire.

          But if you have a way that does not involve a FIT to reduce your electricity bills, I am all ears. Obviously you have spent a lot of time researching this. I’ve not heard of microsolar before.

          80

          • #
            RickWill

            If you do not already have a power meter then that is likely the best investment to identify where your electricity is going. Unless you live in South Australia, almost all forms of off-grid generation and storage are more expensive than grid power. There are a few exceptions. If you have a high FIT like Bobl then it is economic to reduce your daytime load using off-grid generation to maximise the benefit of the FIT.

            Power meters are not particularly expensive:
            https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/240V-Power-Meter-Monitor-Energy-Consumption-Watt-Electricity-Usage-Tester-VC-/162775908703
            You only need to find one or two odd loads to pay for it in savings over a few weeks.

            One of the surprises for me was the electric fan in our central gas heating drawing 600W. Another was high demand on the freezer because the auto defrost element had failed and the unit was iced up internally so running a lot more than it should and still not getting to temperature.

            Any load that is easily shifted to daylight operation is also a candidate for off-grid generation. For example a pool pump. They need to run more when there is sunlight so fit well with solar panels and a battery large enough to get the motor running. Typically there is already some form of electrical installation for the pump in a pool shed. Any electrician should be able to set up a dedicated system for this sort of function.

            Some older style appliances and media devices have significant standby power. I have an example where the payback in saved electricity for a TV recorder was 18 months. The new one is still connected but its use has diminished since streaming has become available. TV recorders are now a bygone era.

            Subtle education of any children in the house on their energy consumption can also provide dividends. Knowing what things cost to run is the starting point.

            If you have a smart meter then make use of the data the meter installer can provide on-line. Knowing what the total load is in the wee hours can be illuminating!

            Knowing where your electricity is being consumed is the first step in lowering its cost. The old beer fridge in the garage is a classic and unlikely to be justified unless you consume a lot of beer.

            00

          • #
            Bobl

            Jo,
            As I say further down we should recognize the subsidized solar scheme which in QLD has been extended. I don’t feel guilty because if I can get people to exploit it fully then I can collapse it. The worse we make the affordability crisis in the short term the faster we can build resistance to it and the faster we can create the condition for it to fail.

            Note that off gridding is worse than exploiting FIT because that undermines the grid business model. The centralised energy model itself can collapse. Off grid is a disaster for the energy system.

            00

          • #
            Ve2

            Jo, the 60c feed-in tariff rate depends on the company and date when the contract was signed, my rate with AGL was on offer at 60c plus 8c a time when the company was desperate to increase its mandated renewable percentage target.
            Out of the blue 2 years ago this was increased to 71.5c.
            The whole thing is a scam and the only one I was able to get in on.
            I do not feel guilty about my neighbors and friends paying for this because most of them vote Labor, they wanted it and they got it but they still bitch about paying for it.

            00

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Bobl,

          Interesting.

          However, Jo’s point on the FiT is spot on. 60 c/unit is unsustainable.

          If you do an analysis for publication try using the current FiT. In Perth at the moment that 7.1 cents/kWh. That’ll change your net financial outcome, I’ll warrant.

          00

          • #
            Bobl

            Yes it does, but I can model lots of different scenarios. I get 60.1 which I agree is unsustainable but it’s what I can get so I take advantage. The 44c solar bonus in QLD comes out of general revenue, from my own water bill and rates, so I am not feeling guilty at all. The QLD government is particularly good at gouging us. Energy Australia are offering 16.1 retailer FIT.

            If the FIT is less than the discounted tariff then the strategy is different, rather than moving load out of the solar window you move load into it. This means storing solar for night time use and potentially handling cooking loads differently. You can use the same micro storage strategies except you charge the batteries using the grid connect solar.

            Jo, to cover the subject properly I should do both strategies and a total off grid strategy.

            00

  • #
    DaveR

    Its a scandalous result which prbably torpedos Frydenberg’s NEG straight away.

    I have read the AGL result, but given AGL is a major generator of renewable energy, I still cant easily identify the $ amount received from the government as renewables subsidies. It must be identified as a seperate income item somewhere.

    80

    • #
      PeterS

      My understanding is the government doesn’t pay to AGL any subsidies. Energy retailers are forced by the government to purchase RECs (Renewable Energy Certificates) and they pass the cost on to the consumers. I think AGL also obtains loans from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to finance the building of wind/solar farms. Again the cost of the loan is passed on to the consumer. That’s how any business operates – they pass on the costs to the consumer or else they go broke. Simple economics. So the root cause of higher power costs is the government, not the energy retailer.

      130

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        PeterS:

        I recently decided to change my electricity supplier from AGL. I have been with them for about 8 years without getting any calls.
        Within 2 weeks (once they got the paperwork about the switch over in September) I got a phone call from AGL offering higher discount fixed for 2 years. At the question whether I had any reason to switch I replied “I don’t like your boss Vesey and the way he operates”. “Oh” followed by end of call.

        131

        • #
          Yonniestone

          As stated earlier we were in the same boat with AGL and decided it wasn’t worth the swap as all the energy retailers are doing the same as AGL in various levels, who did you go with and how far into the green rubbish are they?

          As Peter says its just the nature of business which is a given but when its a fake free market driven by a monopoly that has the final say in energy policy its manipulation pure and simple, vote wise and vote hard.

          70

          • #
            PeterS

            It’s a fake free market only because the government created it in the first place. Stop the love affair with the Paris Agreement and emissions reduction nonsense, and the problem is fixed virtually overnight. Only the government can do that, not the energy retailer. Businesses are not charities but governments can be. At this stage Turnbull’s government is as charitable as someone giving another person who is dying of thirst a water bottle filled with sand.

            100

          • #
            Bobl

            No, that’s not right. I have built a power monitoring database that sits watching my household consumption and solar generation in real time. I have added cost estimating so that I just need to define the tariff rates and the system can extrapolate the quarterly bill. You can have many rates.

            Based on the actual tariffs I can now compare the forecasts for one suppliers tariffs against others using my actual consumption/generation taking into account all the different discounts and tariffs discounted and there are marked differences. But it depends on your particular mix of generation and consumption. My system does that.

            In Queensland if you have at least 3kW of solar are eligible for the 44c government SJW feed in and are prepared to minimise daytime use (use timers to switch off almost everything between dawn and dusk) Energy Australia’s 28% discounted plan is the best because they offer 16.1c retail feed in. Adding that to the Solar bonus 44c is 60.1c feed in. For every watt I can export I can buy almost 3kW of their 28% discounted power. Just 10kWh of export means I can use up to about 30kWh at zero cost. The computer model cuts right through the confusion of discounts and what they apply to.

            Knowledge is power.

            21

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Vote Wise.

            and

            Vote Hard.

            Thanks Yonnie, something I can relate to.

            KK

            10

        • #
          Dennis

          Many consumers have poor finance skill and do not realise that if an electricity supplier offers a 22 per cent discount for payment of bills on time there must be a substantial operating profit margin for that discount to be affordable and profit before tax to be way above the average for large businesses generally.

          A normal 30-day account settlement on time discount is 2.5 per cent.

          10

          • #
            yarpos

            yep, when I compare the heavily discounted rates vs my basic no frills offer they have just tacked on the % to take it off again and added a condition.

            10

            • #
              Bobl

              Yes, but the discounts tally up differently depending on your nett consumption so if your consumption is high 28% off consumption only (Energy Australia) is better than say 21% off consumption and service charges offered by origin you need to do this based on your own consumption and generation numbers.

              It’s almost impossible to do that without analyzing your individual consumption and generation profile.

              00

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        PeterS@#8.1

        It’s way past time to call out this lie that there is no tax and no government subsidy and beat it to death. The subsidy is paid by government decree, so the levy to fund it is a tax!

        40

        • #
          RickWill

          The subsidy to pay for the LGCs is a simple transfer payment from electricity consumers to the grid scale wind and solar producers. The government are not involved in the transfer payment. They just designed the system that requires the transfer. Electricity consumers have no choice in making the payment. The only way to avoid it is to make your own electricity and stop being a consumer of grid electricity.

          10

        • #
          GreatAuntJanet

          Ah but, it’s all for our own good!
          I will recite the Ministerial mantra: “guaranteed affordable, reliable and secure power” at least five times a day, either on or off the premises, whether or not I believe it ()

          00

    • #
      RickWill

      As Graeme states AGL do not receive a government subsidy for their ambient energy production. They get a transfer payment from consumers (probably includes you if you pay for electricity) via the retailers. which includes them as they are also a retailer.

      A quick scan of the register indicates roughly 1,100,000 LGCs were created in 2017 by AGL. That would have a value of around $95M.
      https://www.rec-registry.gov.au/rec-registry/app/public/lgc-register
      They were not all surrendered.

      The total number of LGCs created in 2017 was 17,586,335. They would have a market value of $1,400,000,000. However the cost of intermittent generation is a number much bigger than this.

      30

    • #
      Another Ian

      DaveR

      “It must be identified as a seperate income item somewhere.”

      The secret of a good scam is that this is not so

      10

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Speaking of fairy stories….love the picture…..funny….

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-10/australia-neg-failure-climate-change-pacific-countries-fiji/10093652

        “As political leaders from across the country meet to determine the fate of the nation’s embattled energy policy, they must be under no illusion as to how Australia’s backwardness on climate change is perceived by our Pacific island neighbours.

        No region is at greater risk to the dangers of climate change than the Pacific — nor more determined to lead by example.

        And if Australia is to maintain its position as a trusted partner of Pacific island nations amid growing competition in the region, we must demonstrate that we are serious about the number one threat to the wellbeing, human rights and prospects of Pacific peoples — climate change.

        But as it stands, the proposed National Energy Guarantee (NEG) will fall well short of demonstrating this commitment — and well short of the ambitious strides being taken by our Pacific neighbours.

        In November, the Marshall Islands will host a special summit of the Climate Vulnerable Forum — a group of nearly 50 countries that are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including many of our Pacific neighbours.

        Despite contributing almost nothing to the causes of climate change, members of the forum are leading the world to a brighter future. They are committed to achieving 100 per cent renewable energy as soon as possible and are urging the rest of the world to step up.

        A month prior, in October, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its special report on limiting warming to 1.5°C. The report will show more clearly than ever the truly transformative global action required to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and protect communities everywhere from the ravages of climate change.”

        10

      • #
        RickWill

        The LGC register lists all the LGCs ever created and by what entity. In 2017 the register has over 700 different AGL operating units creating LGCs for retailers to buy and surrender.
        https://www.rec-registry.gov.au/rec-registry/app/public/lgc-register
        The register is public information.

        00

  • #
    Sean

    Dr. Judith Curry likes to talk about the “uncertainty monster” in climate but in renewable energy policy there is a “policy certainty” monster which is really a misnomer for profit certainty. The rules are written to insure renewables will make a profit at the expense of other generation and rate payers. This used to be called price collusion and was a criminal offense but it’s been turned into a virtue by governments more beholden to green industrialists than customers. Sometimes governments will try to control this with limits on profitability of around 8% but in a “policy certainty” world you just need to increase costs to increase profits. Hence the “$2 billion investment in renewables is telling. Higher production costs means more profit.

    100

  • #
    el gordo

    Old style capitalism puts shareholders welfare above ordinary folk, AGL reckons those Australians can go to hell. Its too early to send in the troops, so in the meantime.

    ‘Liberal MP Craig Kelly is calling for an overhaul of Australian consumer laws, which would force AGL to keep Liddell power station open or sell it to a competitor who will keep it running.

    ‘The suggestion would preclude companies who are dominant market players from limiting their essential service production in ways that might compromise or prejudice consumers.’

    4BC

    111

    • #
      PeterS

      In any society where capitalism is allowed the aim of the game is to make profit so that shareholders receive a good return for their participation in supporting said company. Otherwise the company flounders and may go broke. The root cause of the fiasco we have at the moment is the government who insists the power companies use more renewables and less coal, which means the power companies have to pass on the extra costs to the consumers. It’s pretty simple. Get rid of the various incentives for power companies to make more money with renewables and get back to a level playing field. Once that is done renewables will no longer be able to compete with cheap coal and the reneweables industry goes bust leading to a fall in power prices. Chance of that happening under Turnbull or Shorten? A big fat ZERO.

      110

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Chance of that happening under Turnbull or Shorten?’

        That is true, which is why I nominate Craig Kelly to become PM after the coup.

        Your support for old world capitalism is disappointing.

        10

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          Craig Kelly is under threat of losing pre-selection. Watch out for this.

          30

          • #
            el gordo

            He has the backing of Abbott and the PM gave him a reference.

            If the green deep state throw him out then he would undoubtedly quit the party and run as an independent.

            00

        • #
          PeterS

          Which version of old world capitalism are you referring to? There are several. I support none of them. I actually prefer the Jewish way of doing business. It works very well.

          00

          • #
            el gordo

            Did you know that the US is by far the biggest investor in Australia? Alarm bells should be ringing.

            00

            • #
              PeterS

              Alarms bells have been ringing for decades. Not many people even to this day have noticed. They will once the sound of the bells are replaced by the sound of the crash and burn.

              00

              • #
                el gordo

                Australia is a free market economy and the RBA are saying everything is going swimmingly, so no crash and burn on my watch.

                00

              • #
                el gordo

                Bring it on.

                ‘The effect is brutal and immediate. It maximises political pressure on Turnbull and his Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg, to prove they have the support they need from Liberals and Nationals MPs before they go back to the states.

                ‘That means getting their policy through a divided Coalition party room in Canberra on Tuesday, staring down complaints from former prime minister Tony Abbott and running the risk that some Liberals and Nationals will cross the floor in Parliament.’

                SMH

                10

    • #
      Robert Swan

      I think you’re wrong to suggest this is a war between the shareholders and us. Most of us probably are shareholders.(through super). At the beginning of the year, AGL’s share price was around $24, it is now about $21. Yesterday’s dividend was $0.63 per share. Doesn’t look like a money factory to me.

      There are wheels within wheels here, and deals with deals. Whatever you mean by “old world capitalism”, what is going on with AGL is anything but a free market. The management of AGL is serving the interests of ordinary shareholders and customers in exactly the same way that ALP and LNP MPs are serving the interests of voters. I.e. to the very least extent they think they can get away with.

      31

      • #
        PeterS

        Correct. I was going to mention super but you beat me to it. The problem isn’t so much capitalism as it is about government policies underpinned by regulations, incentives, etc. Capitalism can be steered to provide much benefit to a nation as Trump is demonstrating as we speak. It’s far from perfect but it’s better than its main alternative – full blown socialism.

        20

      • #
        Bobl

        I dunno, 0.63 on a $21 share price is 4.8% assuming the distribution was fully franked this grosses up to around 9% looks pretty healthy to me

        10

        • #
          Robert Swan

          I wasn’t saying they were on the skids, just that the way the company is being run, neither the interests of the customers nor the owners is well served. Dividend yield is a good measure for a well run company, but won’t catch the sacrificing of long-term profitability for short-terrm gain. Maybe the falling share price reflects a suspicion this might be going on and the chance of a reckoning to come.

          10

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Right on Target.

        “To the very least extent that ,,,,,,,,,,,,”.

        Sums it up beautifully.

        KK

        00

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Whatever you mean by “old world capitalism”, what is going on with AGL is anything but a free market.’

        Millions of little people without shares or super are being trampled on by laissez faire capitalists, in comparison say to Beijing who are more proactive when it comes to energy.

        00

        • #
          Robert Swan

          Millions of “little people” with shares or super are also being trampled.

          I don’t understand how you sheet the blame home to “laissez faire capitalists”. Laissez faire means “without government interference”. But Australia’s whole energy fiasco stems from federal government interference in what was a stable state government market. It hasn’t been laissez faire in any sense for the best part of 100 years. A better term for what has developed is “crony capitalism”. The decisions being made are commercially insane, but work well for a coterie of “mates”.

          10

    • #
      Dennis

      Liddell Power Station handed over free of charge as a package deal sale of Bayswater Power Station nearby.

      30

  • #

    Yes, there’s a globalist agenda, creepy as you please.

    But, on a still lower level, there’s common skimming, pilfering, plundering and trough-swilling. Because remember: these people are as common as muck.

    There is no green economy, there are no green jobs. They do not exist and were never meant to exist. We get our power the way we always got it, but now there’s this superposition of toy technologies as millions are skimmed for their implementation, maintenance and supplementation. A scandal could not be more blatant, and if the press and academia were not a pampered slave class the scandal would be blasted to the skies.

    It’s nine o’clock Thursday evening, August 9 2018, and this rag-tag of globalist touts, Turnbull, Frydenberg and Bishop, are still in power. What? Do we wait another day? Wait for what?

    Coalition, what are you thinking? Think you can save a seat let alone government with this electoral cyanide? Think you can do wonders from opposition?

    And I’d like to apologise for letting a whole day go without naming and shaming Turnbull, Frydendberg and Bishop. Really sorry. Got lazy.

    270

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Absolutely Brilliant!!!.

      There is a problem though.

      We, here on this blog, have a very good idea of what is going on because we worked at it

      The average voter knows only what they get from the media, and that’s confusing for them.

      Brilliant.

      KK

      121

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Sorry, forgot.

        Turnbull
        Bishop
        Frydenberg

        Must Go.

        KK

        80

      • #
        PeterS

        That’s the problem I’ve been highlighting for a long while. Too many voters are either too busy, don’t give a damn or too dumb to understand the reality of the situation. Hence we get the government we deserve. As things get worse and more people start to feel the pain and complain they do what they always do – vote for the opposition, which in this case is ALP. It would be smarter this time around if enough people voted for another party to create a stalemate or hung parliament forcing a third party to bang heads together from the two majors and get things working again.

        111

        • #
          el gordo

          No that won’t work, even if Cory could gather all the independents in support of a common cause, they would only be a splinter group.

          The reality is, if Turnbull cannot be unseated then its curtains for Australian democracy.

          Make your vote count – Vote Informal.

          21

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Election Gordo

            When you say ” vote Informal” you must have an idea of what’s going to happen.

            Can you share that with us; it seems like taking two steps backwards away from the problem.

            KK

            20

          • #
            PeterS

            Voting informal means you don’t give a damn who wins, which was often my attitude in the past. To some extent that summarises the quality of all the parties. However, I now rather at least try to make a difference by forcing a hung parliament to see if some common sense can be knocked into the heads of the two major parties. Probably won’t make much difference but it’s better than just giving up and letting things continue to go down the tubes. Of course if the LNP changes leader and there is a welcome change to energy polices, immigration, water, etc., then I would vote for LNP in a heartbeat.

            20

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Yes, I’ll allow that’s brilliant. A very well put together rant.

      Now for a little conspiratorial thinking: On the morning of 9th August I read a story in which Barnaby Joyce attacked Malcolm Turnbull over a personal matter. not a political matter, nor even a business matter. A personal matter. This I saw as very strange.

      It is for sure and certain that Barnaby Joyce and the national Party have been slowing down the AGW bandwagon. But Barnaby Joyce as deputy PM was the model deputy. He kept his opposition out of the public view. Now, no longer constrained by the responsibility of higher office, he attacks the PM—over a personal matter??? A day or two before the NEG meeting???.

      Is there more to come?

      40

  • #
    pat

    h/t Rowan Dean on Sky News “Outsiders” 9 Aug 2018:

    8 Aug: Joint media release by Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and EU’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission Federica Mogherini
    The EU and Australia share a common view on the importance of strengthening the international rules-based order. We are working closely together in response to challenges to that order.

    We discussed the progress of the Australia-EU Framework Agreement, which we signed in August 2017, and plans for the inaugural joint committee this year. The Framework will enhance dialogue and cooperation on issues such as terrorism, non-proliferation, the environment and energy, human rights, migration, trade, education and science, research and innovation…

    (FINAL LINE) We recognised the extensive cooperation and dialogue between Australia and the EU and its Member States on climate change, and progress towards the launch of a Strategic Partnership on Implementing the PARIS AGREEMENT
    and the strong ongoing engagement on the environment through existing dialogues.
    https://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2018/jb_mr_180808b.aspx

    Great Barrier Reef Foundation: Our position on climate change
    We believe climate change is the biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef.
    We support the PARIS AGREEMENT and believe every individual, business and government, both in Australia and internationally, has an important role to play in achieving these targets…

    “The Great Barrier Reef is in grave danger. The twin perils brought by climate change, an increase in the temperature of the ocean and in its acidity, threaten its very existence.” – Sir David Attenborough
    DONATE NOW
    https://www.barrierreef.org/the-foundation/our-position-on-climate-change

    41

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Spooky stuff when you consider that our relationship with the EU should be adequately covered by our existing government structure.

      There should be No Need for a Supranational Treaty which gives Miss Bish the power to represent us without too much scrutiny.

      As for the great barrier reef, it has done very well by itself for the last two thousand years.

      Why interfere with a natural ongoing process and spend tens of millions of dollars to kill Crown of Thorns starfish.

      They are an essential element of the ecosystem.

      KK

      40

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    9 Aug: Independent Australia: Turnbull, the #Reefgate rort and Rupert
    by David Donovan
    (David Donovan started Independent Australia in June 2010. He is the younger brother of former South Australian Liberal Party state candidate Matthew Donovan)
    And just when you thought it couldn’t possibly get any worse, it has emerged that two colleagues of Turnbull’s from his Goldman Sachs days were directors when Turnbull gave Schubert the good news in April…

    The Prime Minister’s wife, Lucy Turnbull, was also on the GBRF Board of Directors from 2007 to 2015. She is currently the patron of the organisation. Incidentally, Lucy Turnbull was also part of a Google judging panel that, in October 2016, awarded $750,000 to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation…
    https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/turnbull-reefgate-and-rupert,11772

    9 Aug: Independent Australia: #Reefgate: GBRF plans to hold onto its $443 million lottery win
    by Martin Hirst
    According to a briefing report (LINK) by the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Government was looking for ways to keep a commitment it made to UNESCO in 2016 to commit $716 million to the Reef Action Plan 2050 between 2015 and 2020. This promise was made to keep the Reef environment off the World Heritage “In Danger” list that UNESCO keeps.

    Without the extraordinary gift of funds to the GBRF, the Turnbull Government was never going to meet its obligations to UNESCO…
    https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/reefgate-gbrf-plans-to-hold-onto-its-443-million-lottery-win,11771

    50

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      A great find.

      Connections, Connections, Connections.

      Huge Cash Transfer, to connections, is O.K. because of “Obligations” to a heavenly body.

      Perhaps that might be better expressed as;

      OBLIQUATIONS.

      KK

      30

  • #
    pat

    AUDIO: 15mins34secs: 9 Aug: 2GB: Ben Fordham takes Environment Minister to task over mysterious $444-million reef grant
    After a round in the ring with Ben, the Environment Minister was left bruised and battered, failing to answer whose idea the grant was and why there was no tender process.
    It seems ‘yes’ and ‘no’ are two words that slipped from the minister’s vocabulary.

    Ben: “Have you ever, Josh Frydenberg, handed over nearly half a billion dollars without going to a competitive tender?”
    Minister: “Ben, the money has gone to the foundation in accordance with the Commonwealth grant guidelines.”
    Ben: “I’m guessing it’s a no Josh.”
    Minister: “I don’t think you want to hear the answer,
    Ben: “Well I do want to hear the answer, it’s a yes or a no.”

    Getting agitated, the minister says “I don’t have a big bucket of money to continue to hand out to every need”.
    “Well you do for the Great Barrier Reef Foundation,” says Ben.
    Repeatedly dodging the question, Mr Frydenberg then attempts to direct the spotlight.
    “The Labor party gave millions of dollars to the foundation over many years when they were in government.”
    “Not $444 million,” Ben responds.
    As to why it didn’t go to a tender competitive process, the minister again failed to hit back with a straight answer.
    “You’re not telling us why you didn’t put it to a competitive tender process,” says Ben.
    “If they’re so phenomenal, they would’ve won on their own merits”.
    https://www.2gb.com/ben-fordham-takes-environment-minister-to-task-over-mysterious-444-million-reef-grant/

    Impact Challenge with Google (2016): A better world, faster
    The Google Impact Challenge awarded over $5 million to 10 Australian non-profits with big ideas for a better world.
    Voting has closed. There was a virtual tie for the People’s Choice Winner, and two organisations will receive a $750,000 grant. The remaining three winners were chosen by the judges.

    People’s Choice:
    Great Barrier Reef Foundation
    The Nature Conservancy Australia

    Meet the judges
    Lucy Turnbull AO, David Gonski, Layne Beachley AO, Larry Marshall CSIRO, Jacquelline Fuller, director of Google.org, etc.
    https://impactchallenge.withgoogle.com/australia2016

    p.s. how silly we are to expect Ms Google at theirABC to insist taxpayer-funded staff abide by the ABC charter, especially when it comes to CAGW and its costly policies?

    70

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    This story emphasizes that for many public issues, from Australian Energy to American Politics: the lodestone to understanding is the same:

    Follow the Money.

    Regardless of policy or identity arguments, at heart the American election is about money. When the party of government, the Democrats, is not in power, they don’t eat as well. When they are, the private economy does not do as well, except for the cronies of the swamp creatures.

    It seems the major players in Australian energy are less driven by environmental purity than profits; ideological polticians are the useful idiot handmaidens of those with their hand in the till, except where they are one and the same. Cronies of the swamp creatures seems also to apply.

    Will we ever learn that any decision left to the political class rapidly becomes FUBAR?

    60

  • #
    pat

    9 Aug: ClimateChangeNews: Crucial global climate fund facing ‘massive challenges’
    Political divisions between rich and poor countries make the board of the UN climate fund ‘extremely difficult to work with’, says green growth chief
    By Megan Darby and Karl Mathiesen
    The future of the UN’s major climate fund hangs in the balance, with a looming cash shortfall and a boardroom locked in conflict.
    That is the assessment of international green leader Frank Rijsberman, in the most candid high-profile interview on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) since its board meeting collapsed last month.

    Rijsberman is head of the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), which elected former UN chief Ban Ki-moon as its president this year. The GGGI has worked closely with the GCF to help developing countries bypass development banks and gain “direct access” to climate finance. He told Climate Home News he wanted the fund to succeed but it faced “massive challenges”.

    It’s most pressing issue was the need to convince governments to put in more cash, when the projects approved for grants or loans so far have barely started work.
    “They need a replenishment faster than they will be able to show results, meaning they will have to be replenished based on goodwill and intent, which is difficult,” said Rijsberman…

    Rijsberman said that, despite the fund’s importance, there are high-level conversations being held contemplating the failure of the fund to fulfil its mandate…READ ALL
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/08/09/crucial-global-climate-fund-facing-massive-challenges/

    00

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: 7 Aug: Buzzfeed: YouTube Is Fighting Back Against Climate Misinformation
    The company is trying to combat scientific misinformation on its platform. Wikipedia has been helping the streaming platform describe topics like global warming, the MMR vaccine, and UFOs.
    by Zahra Hirji
    YouTube is now adding fact checks to videos that question climate change, BuzzFeed News has confirmed, as a part of its ongoing effort to combat the rampant misinformation and conspiratorial fodder on its platform.
    On July 9, the company added a blurb of text underneath some videos about climate change, which provided a scientifically accurate explainer. The text comes from the Wikipedia entry for global warming and states that “multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.”

    This new feature follows YouTube’s announcement in March that it would place descriptions from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica next to videos on topics that spur conspiracy theories, such as the moon landing and the Oklahoma City bombing. In doing the same for climate videos, the company seems to be wading into more fraught and complex intellectual territory.
    “I’d guess that it will have some influence, at least on those people who don’t know much about the subject,” Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, told BuzzFeed News by email. “Might be confusing to some people, but that’s probably better than just accepting the denier video at face value.”…

    YouTube has not disclosed the full list of topics it is targeting. But a Wikipedia post to its administrators in mid-July offers some clues, listing seven topics the company was helping clarify: global warming, Dulce Base, Lilla Saltsjöbadsavtalet, the 1980 Camarate air crash, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Kecksburg UFO incident, and the MMR vaccine. The two organizations appear to be working more closely since the launch of YouTube’s policy, which Wikipedia did not know about in advance.

    Google, which owns YouTube, has struggled to excise misinformation from its platforms…
    When the new Wikipedia blurb policy took effect in July, YouTube did not publicly say that climate change was an impacted topic, and the company did not notify users who had uploaded the affected videos…

    The Heartland Institute, for example, a conservative think tank that posts videos of its staff and others questioning climate change, told BuzzFeed News that it noticed the change a few weeks ago and had not been notified by YouTube. Spokesperson Jim Lakely declined to comment on the policy or its impact…

    “Despite claiming to be a public forum and a platform open to all, YouTube is clearly a left-wing organization,” Craig Strazzeri, PragerU’s chief marketing officer, said by email. “This is just another mistake in a long line of giant missteps that erodes America’s trust in Big Tech, much like what has already happened with the mainstream news media.”

    YouTuber Tony Heller, who also makes climate denial videos, described the policy on Twitter as YouTube “putting propaganda at the bottom of all climate videos.” (He did not respond to a request for comment.)…

    It’s not just misleading climate videos. The same climate blurb was appended to dozens of videos explaining the evidence and impacts of climate change.
    “It was a surprise when we saw it show up on videos that are not conspiracy videos, but climate science videos,” Joe Hanson, who produces multiple video series including Hot Mess and It’s Okay to Be Smart, told BuzzFeed News.
    Hanson polled his audience about YouTube’s fact-checking, and the result was largely positive. “It is a probably a good thing,” especially for videos with misleading science, Hanson said.

    “I welcome this change,” Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, told BuzzFeed News by email. Climate science is not an opinion because scientists agree it’s happening based on documented facts, she said. “I appreciate that YouTube is taking their responsibility seriously to help people understand the difference.” Hayhoe had noticed the descriptions suddenly show up with her Global Weirding video series on YouTube.

    Climate scientist Michael Mann likened YouTube’s new messaging to the warning label on a pack of cigarettes: “Warning — this video may or may not be promoting actual facts about climate change.”

    YouTube says the goal of its policy is to give users easy access to more context and information on topics prone to misinformation, such as climate change. And in the coming months, more and more videos will be getting these labels.
    The company is using an algorithm, not people, to decide which videos get the blurbs and which do not, a spokesperson said. The labels are for now only visible to people in the US and are being rolled out gradually…

    YouTube plans to measure the effectiveness of these panels by tracking how often users click on the climate description provided, which links back to the original Wikipedia page. If the page gets updated, so will the text under the videos.

    And what if the Wikipedia page is edited to include misinformation? The YouTube spokesperson noted that the text under the videos does not refresh immediately, leaving a time lag between when a Wikipedia page is edited and when the change shows up on YouTube. This could allow Wikipedia editors to catch inaccuracies before they appear on YouTube — or lead to angry YouTubers giving Wikipedia added headaches. (Wikipedia deferred questions on this topic to YouTube.)
    According to a BuzzFeed News review of dozens of videos, the label shows up more consistently on videos with “global warming” and “climate change” in the title than ones without.

    On a series of misleading climate videos posted by the news site RT, there is no note about climate change, but there is a Wikipedia description about the publisher, saying: “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.”

    Jason Reifler, a political science professor at the University of Exeter, praised YouTube for starting to tackle the challenge of misinformation but said he’s skeptical of how effective the climate change description will be.

    “They could have chosen wording that’s stronger and gets more to what the real terms of debate are between the extremely well-supported consensus scientific video versus the much, much smaller proportion of skeptics,” Reifler told BuzzFeed News.
    “I’m doubtful this first step is going to do much,” he added. “But I hope it does!”
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/youtube-climate-change-denial

    30

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    9 Aug: UK Times: Renewables Infrastructure Group: Prices blow in right direction for profits
    by Greig Cameron, Scottish Business Editor
    Higher power prices helped The Renewables Infrastructure Group to report a 50 per cent jump in half-year profit.
    The company said that the increase in profit had helped to offset reduced wind speeds across parts of its portfolio in the first six months of the year.

    The group, which was listed on the London Stock Exchange in 2013, has built stakes in onshore and offshore wind and solar and battery storage in Britain and overseas. Pre-tax profit was £47.3 million, against £31.3 million in the first half of last year.
    Its assets generated 1,003 gigawatt hours of electricity, compared with 851 in the same part of 2017. The average price per megawatt hour rose by more than 11 per cent to £98.62.
    The group noted that lower than average wind speeds, particularly across its Scottish sites , had been mitigated by rising power prices and an improved solar generation performance…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/prices-blow-in-right-direction-for-profits-x3pttnlbm

    9 Aug: UK Times: Is it time to stop discussing the heatwave and start talking about climate change?
    It is the hot topic for what could be the hottest season on record. Should we be basking in it or be worried for the future, Damian Whitworth asks the scientists
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/is-it-time-to-stop-discussing-the-heatwave-and-start-talking-about-climate-change-rx0bw6kzv

    CarbonBrief re above:

    This summer’s heatwave has refocused “jaded minds on global warming”, says Times feature writer Damian Whitworth, in a lengthy feature on the topic. He writes that “there are still some who believe humans may not be responsible”, quoting an article by Guus Berkhout for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate-sceptic lobby group. But Whitworth goes on say that: “Personally I believe in man-made climate change because it seems as if most scientists do.” He describes how a data visualisation of global warming by NASA, shown to him by Professor Ed Hawkins, “hit home…most clearly”.

    00

  • #
    pat

    8 Aug: InsideClimateNews: Climate Change Denialists Never Had It So Good. So Why the Angst?
    Despite having unprecedented influence in Washington to achieve a fossil fuel-first agenda, conservative interests are eyeing events outside the Beltway with unease.
    By Marianne Lavelle
    When climate science deniers and fossil fuel evangelists met Tuesday in New Orleans for the Heartland Institute’s second “America First” conference on U.S. energy, they had every reason to celebrate the unprecedented influence they enjoy in the Trump administration.
    Instead, they found plenty of reasons for dread.

    With carbon tax proposals floating, climate lawsuits advancing, big corporations embracing the need for action and states and cities getting into the act, many of those gathered grappled with the reality that a fossil future was not secure—despite a largely pliant White House and Congress.

    Contrarian scientists, policy professionals and lawyers affiliated with conservative interests contemplated the spread of the climate action agenda as if it were a malignancy. While speakers at the live-streamed sessions universally praised President Donald Trump and his regulatory rollbacks, the overwhelming diagnosis was that more aggressive policy surgery was needed…READ ALL
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07082018/heartland-institute-climate-change-denial-trump-administration-fossil-fuels-carbon-tax

    10

  • #
    pat

    8 Aug: Carbon Pulse: China’s coal rebound continues while ETS, climate policy get stuck
    A hot July helped China’s coal imports to hit their highest levels in almost five years as coal consumption continues to grow while the government’s work to carve out regulations for its planned national emissions trading scheme has ground to a halt…

    9 Aug: Reuters: China July coal imports highest in years as heatwave fuels demand
    by Muyu Xu and Josephine Mason
    China increased its coal imports in July by 14 percent to their highest in 4-1/2 years, official data showed on Wednesday, as rising temperatures boosted demand for coal-fired power to run air conditioners in the world’s top buyer of the fuel.
    Arrivals came in at 29.01 million tonnes last month, the General Administration of Customs said. That is the highest since January 2014.
    Imports rose 23.9 percent from 25.47 million tonnes in June and climbed 49.1 percent from 19.46 million tonnes in July 2017.

    Electric power loads on the transmission grid in parts of China soared late last month because of high temperatures, with southern areas of the Hebei province that surrounds Beijing reporting record demand and the State Grid Corporation of China [STGRD.UL] warning of power shortages…

    The data is also another signal that customs has relaxed its checks on foreign shipments, which had slowed arrivals earlier this year.
    Cheng Gong, coal analyst at Zheshang Securities, said imports were higher than he expected.
    “The authorities have vowed to ensure coal supplies and keep prices running smoothly during the peak season, therefore checks on imports could not be tightened in the short term,” he said.
    Year-to-date imports were up 15 percent at 175 million tonnes…
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-trade-coal/china-july-coal-imports-highest-in-years-as-heatwave-fuels-demand-idUSKBN1KT0FC

    10

  • #
    Ian of Brisbane

    Retailers should be banned from owning generators, get some competition back in the market.

    11

  • #

    Oh my!

    It’s been a pretty sorrowful day for AGL today for its coal fired power plants, the two of them at Bayswater and at Liddell.

    It had one of its four Units down at Basywater being upgraded, and two of the Units down at Liddell, and then part way through today, another of those Units at Bayswater held a staged decrease from 640MW back to zero over six hours.

    So, AGL only had HALF of its coal fired assets in operation. (two units each at Bayswater and Liddell)

    So, across just the last 24 HOURS, just from the sale of the electricity generated from half those coal fired assets, AGL only made, umm, ….. $5.38 Million.

    In 24 hours.

    Oh, please don’t tell me that there’s no money in coal fired power.

    Tony.

    170

  • #
    TdeF

    Firstly, a piffling $444million, 7.5 tons of gold to friends of the Turnbulls.

    When Gillard gave $93Million of our money to Flannery’s Hot Rocks company, with directors on $400,000 a year each, it was a total waste of public money. The Pink Batts scheme blew $2,500million and people died, but at least people received pink batts. No one really cared if they worked to lower electricity consumption, but something.

    Now the Turnbull’s have given $444Million without tender to a 6 person philanthropic foundation to save the reef, a group including friends of both Lucy and Malcolm Turnbull. Two had had lunch with Lucy, she says a year ago. One was a manager of Goldmann Sachs.
    Now I would love to know how the $444Million is actually going to benefit the Great Barrier Reef. It seems this ‘philanthropic’ organization is well placed to get more ‘donations’ using this tiny amount as ‘seed’ money?

    Even Michael Myer philanthropist says “Mr Myer, who has almost 40 years’ experience receiving and awarding grants with the Myer Foundation, said the government’s decision was wrong. He said the small charity, which until recently had just six full time staff members, is not equipped to handle such a large sum. “It seriously is unthinkable that a grant of that size would be given to any single philanthropic charitable organisation in this country,”

    This impenetrable and absurd and pompous waffle from Malcolm Turnbull

    ““What it will do is ensure that we get this substantial amount of money into maintaining the health of the reef, in particular in ensuring that you don’t get sediments and various other materials washing onto the reef from farms, and of course it puts a huge amount of money into the starfish, into eradicating the crown of thorns starfish, so it has been widely welcomed, it is a very, very thorough process, and it is one that I think Australians who care about the Great Barrier Reef, and I think almost all Australians do, should, welcome.”

    Waffle. Rivers of cash and sediment. Killing the Crown of Thorns Starfish (again), an animal which in Tahiti has been recognized long term as being good for rejuventation of the reef.

    As reported in the Australian “a former director of Mr Turnbull’s old bank who was on the board of the foundation when the Prime ­Minister gave it $444 million has called for carbon emissions to be reduced to zero by 2050 to save the reef.”
    Now how is lower CO2 going to save the reef?

    Friends of the Turnbulls and Goldmann Sachs. Money for jam. No tender.

    171

    • #
      TdeF

      Graham Richardson on this..

      “the PM will have to deal with his own developing scandal. The $444 million given to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation without tender and without any consultation with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is arguably the worst piece of public administration I have seen in more than four decades of close observation. It is right up there with the home insulation scheme, which could at least in part be excused by the sudden emergence of the global financial crisis in 2008. There is no crisis excuse, nor indeed any excuse, for this outrage, which appears to be a captain’s call.”

      However I cannot now agree “For a man with such a high IQ”. Having read more, this is more of the crafted Turnbull myth. He was a privileged only child who inherited millions from his real estate developer father who died in a plane crash. Malcolm’s greatest achievement as a private banker was putting $500K into Sean Howard’s Ozemail which earned him $59Million when the American telephone giant came to Australia in the dotcom boom. The whole thing was worthless when Hotmail was released free.

      However Malcolm and Lucy are not at arms length from many of the senior executives now benefiting from his inexplicable largesse as Prime Minister. No one accuses Donald Trump of looking after his many business friends. Not so with the Turnbulls. Perhaps they see themselves as the new Medicis. It would be better though if they used their own money, not ours.

      We had enough of crooked Gillard. Then crooked Hillary. Now the Turnbulls look set to join them. All above the law.

      151

    • #
      David Maddison

      The insanity is unbelievable. First the government tries to get rid of a beneficial trace gas from the atmosphere now tries to get rid of a beneficial animal (crown of thorns starfish) for which there is no evidence that it is an introduced species.

      60

      • #
        Robdel

        The collective insanity will only cease when the lights go out, as will necessarily happen. Until then you just have to lump it.

        10

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      TdeF:

      The Turnbulls think that a big wall made of banknotes will stop sediments and crown of thorns starfish getting at the reef. They can’t use their own money because it is all in foreign banknotes which aren’t waterproof.

      70

  • #
    TdeF

    Now the NEG. We are being told by AEMO that preventing blackouts in Victoria last year cost us somehow $50Million in shutdowns? Front page today is that next summer, it will cost us $300Million to pull the same stunt without the NEG.

    We are already paying Alcoa, Port Pirie, Whyalla to stay in business. I have read $80,000 per year per employee in Portland.
    Money is flowing like a river.

    It’s all about shutdowns, paying people to keep silent, paying people to not work, fining companies for not closing smelters and factories fast enough.

    So what happened to our more than adequate and secure electricity system for the last 20 years, since the Federal government intervened to control State electricity, when there wasn’t a problem in the first place?

    Hot rocks, pink batts, NBN and now windmills, solar farms, Snow II, submarines, Great Barrier Reef rescues.
    We are being robbed by our own government when even the Myer family say we are being robbed.

    For the first time, I have to admit that the Prime Minister and his wife are giving strong indication that they are running the country for the benefit of their friends.

    The former managing director of Goldmann Sachs and former Sydney Mayor Lucy Turnbull are taking the country for a ride.
    Has a Prime Minister of Australia ever been so compromised. Day after day we read that the people in the ‘winner’s circle’
    all appear to be close friends of Malcolm and Lucy.

    AGL and Malcolm’s banker friends are very happy.

    Of course it’s all about the Greens saving the world from CO2. Really? How’s that going?

    141

  • #
    TdeF

    We can only hope that there is a revolt in the party room next week, that the NEG is voted down. It is possible that Malcolm and Lucy and the Black Hand are just trying to see how far they can to legislate their Green agenda without a back bench revolt. They must have done their numbers to try a stunt like this which is close to bringing down Turnbull’s Liberals.

    Still, their job is done. Under the Turnbulls Greens, allegedly Conservative government is shown to be as corrupt as Labor. Saving the world from Carbon is a ridiculous excuse for the worst and most rapacious government in Australia’s history. The RET is criminal. The NEG is the icing on the cake.

    141

  • #
    David Maddison

    The latest bizarro thought bubble out of Canberra and Finkel is to develop a hydrogen fuel industry by turning Victoriastan brown coal into hydrogen and using carbon capture and storage to dispose of the CO2 by product under Bass Strait….

    60

    • #
      TdeF

      I am reminded of the fact that Greenpeace once banned Chlorine. As Dr. Patrick Moore said in Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout, you cannot ban an element of the periodic table.

      Now under the genius Turnbull duumverate, Australia looks set to ban Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, the building block from which all life on earth is made.

      91

    • #
      TdeF

      It’s also insane to bury CO2 in deep water (Bass strait is not deep enough) because most of the world’s free CO2 is already buried in deep water at about 5ml/litre of liquid CO2. Basically CO2 is extremely soluble in cold water (lemonade, soda water, beer, champagne) and the ocean pressure is 1 atmosphere per ten metres. So the oceans is filled with CO2, which comes out when it heats even slightly.

      Why is this common fact not better known? Warm the oceans and CO2 comes out. Why are we spending $444Million in cash on six people to pretend this is not true? Why are we pretending there is any unnatural problem with the great barrier reef? Why are people pretending the Star of Thorns starfish is anything but beneficial in the medium term? Why are millions and billions flowing to people for nothing at all? Oh, wait.

      91

      • #
        TdeF

        My point about depth in Bass strait is that you have to inter CO2 below the turbulent surface. At a depth of only 50 metres, Victoria has no coastline near the deep ocean at 3,400 metres, say the Tasman Sea away from the Continental shelf. Aborigines walked to Tasmania. So again this scheme is more real cash for make believe solutions. No problem there.

        71

      • #
        David Maddison

        TdeF, in regard to the six person foundation given $444 million one of the founding members described it as unthinkable.

        http://amp.abc.net.au/article/10090780

        ////A member of the Myer family dynasty who played a key role in establishing the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF) has condemned a $444 million federal grant to the body as “shocking and almost mind-blowing”.////

        80

      • #
        Bobl

        Tdef.
        It’s simple politicians can’t handle math, science beyond first order effects. The fact that Henry’s law says that all that involved Co2 will be released to atmosphere sometime later doesn’t matter because that’s second order. It like how politicians think electric vehicles have zero emission …. because the emission is second order, removed from the moment and place occurring 200 km from the car.

        30

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Well put Bob.

          Perhaps others names might be;

          Hidden emissions

          Or

          Remote emissions

          Or

          Premature Emissions.

          KK

          00

    • #
      PeterS

      Meanwhile China, India, Russia and US are increasing their emissions by either building more and more coal fired power stations or bolstering/expanding their existing ones to produce more power, and hence more CO2. I am beginning to think Australia as a whole is mentally retarded.

      92

      • #
        Bodge it an scarpa

        At least 50% of Australians are either retarded or just plain stupid, little doubt about that. Just read their comments on any pro Coal and pro Renewables threads on Facebook and you will shake your head in despair. Your crash and burn scenario is definately coming, no matter who leads the LNP to the next election. This country is populated in the main by morons that are being lorded over by crIminal$.

        21

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Good comment, but we must never forget scientific reality,
        aka full CO2 accounting,

        Renewables have a very high level of CO2 premature emission that for political purposes is swept under the carpet.

        There are also the Post Emission Emissions that arise from the short lifespan of renewables and the necessary decommissioning of plants and structures.

        KK

        11

  • #
    Mark M

    China restarts coal plant construction after two-year freeze

    Satellite imagery reveals that many coal-fired power projects that were halted by the Chinese government have quietly restarted.

    Analysis by CoalSwarm estimates that 46.7 gigawatts of new and restarted coal-fired power construction is visible based on satellite imagery supplied by Planet Labs.

    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/08/07/china-restarts-coal-plant-construction-two-year-freeze/

    70

  • #
    PeterS

    AGL will do what it has been saying it will do no matter what anyone says for the simple reason it can make far more money with renewables under Turnbull’s policy on energy. Turnbull and his cohorts are with the ALP on climate change and renewables. There is virtually no difference. So a vote for LNP might as well be a vote for ALP. The open border issue is no longer a benefit to the LNP. As we all now know Turnbull has an open border policy that has been exposed and is actually worse than ALP’s, believe it or not. These and other reasons are convincing more and more people that Turnbull is a clueless charlatan worse than Shorten. The recent massive and unprecedented “gift” to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation while our farmers are on death’s door is another example of his vision for Australia – death to agriculture and love for anything to do with climate change. Amazing as it sounds we would be better off with an ALP government after the next election if Turnbull is still the leader. I will never vote for the ALP but I know more people now will and so LNP under Turnbull is toast. We can only hope something happens soon and Turnbull and his cohorts are booted out. Even if Shorten still ends up as PM at least the LNP can start rebuilding from scratch now to prepare for its eventual return to government but next time as a party for the nation and not for a clueless charlatan like Turnbull.

    110

    • #
      Bobl

      Short on everything is just a fool driven by Green factions in his own party, particularly union slush pits (super funds) heavily invested in the scam. Turncoat on the other hand knows exactly what he is doing… money… power…

      Get unions out of superannuation and sanity may return to Labor, to get sanity back to liberals just requires Trumbull to be rolled, one MP resigning would be enough, but no-one has the guts.

      40

      • #
        Dennis

        According to The Australian a few days ago the next union movement scam is subject to Shorten Union Labor forming government next year.

        Remember Trade Union Royal Commission inquiries into union owned private company labour hire businesses? They were hiring foreign workers on 457 visa and paying under award wages to them. Minister Bill Shorten assisted with arranging for 457 visa conditions to be lowered.

        The unions plan to create a new wealth creation about hire industry with new regulations requiring labour hire companies to be qualified and certified labour hire specialists. Employees would be union members of course and the businesses they are hired to work for will carry all the costs and liabilities as if the labour hire people were directly employed by them. In short all responsibility on client businesses and a profit margin for the labour hire union owners.

        And what a way to get around the trend towards individual contractors and employees who do not join unions.

        20

    • #
      DaveR

      You are right @Bobl. While the RC has announced they will look at Superannuation Trustees, conflicts of interest, costs and performance, they have not accounced they will look at asset allocation. This is where the Industry Fund problem is; heavily skewing investment levels away from “index weight” to benefit renewable power projects, and thus benefiting their political masters.

      If the renewable subsidies were ended tomorrow, then the writedowns the industry funds would have to make would be the next big scandal

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    AGL is not strictly to blame, they have a responsibility to shareholders. Give someone or a corporation a perverse incentive under the law and it is certain to be enacted upon.

    80

    • #
      PeterS

      100% correct. People are pointing the finger at the wrong group. The LNP is the root cause of the problem not AGL, and so Turnbull and his cohorts must go one way or another, and they will as sure as night follows day. It all depends on whether it’s sooner rather than later at the next election.

      80

      • #
        el gordo

        I blame Premier Gladys for giving Liddell away for a peppercorn to a bloated private company which then squeezed the masses and laughed all the way to the bank.

        60

        • #
          TdeF

          Giving away a State Asset and essential service for $0 makes sense if the new owner agrees to strict conditions to maintain the asset and to meet performance criteria. Clearly that didn’t happen or the conditions were easily avoided or the time scale too short. There must have been a time specified or AGL would have closed it two years ago.

          51

    • #
      TdeF

      Sure. Agreed. The responsibility to make as much money as possible by any means lawful to the letter of the law and a little bit behind. Charging management fees to dead people, ripping off returns on investments for services which did not exist, foreclosing on farmers in difficulty when they have not missed a single payment and forcing you to pay quadruple for their wind power by refusing to provide coal power, for example.

      However the big companies, banks, insurance companies, retailers, energy distributors all cultivate a public persona where they are good corporate citizens and even benificient and generous members of the larger community concerned above all about your welfare. As is all too apparent, that is a charade. It’s all about the money.

      61

  • #
    Egor

    there needs to be a mass sacking starting with that dud Turnbull .

    90

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      He is not dumb.

      He is not a dud.

      If you think either of the above, you are using the criteria that any well meaning voter might use.

      When you consider all of the millions of dollars he has arranged to be “sequestered” then by that measure he is undoubtedly smart.

      On the GBRF issue, it reads like a country club for company elites paid for by the unwitting “investors” in Australia’s Top 100.

      Lot of really smart guys and gals there.

      KK

      20

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        He might not be a dud, but he’s definitely a dudder.

        He’s dudded the Australian people.

        Nope. On second thoughts, he’s also a dud. Yep. Definitely a dud.

        10

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Egor

      Could we change that dud to Mud or even Crud.

      Dud, sort of implies that he didn’t plan any of this unpleasantness.

      KK. :-)

      10

  • #
    TdeF

    There is a front page scare for Victoria in the Australian. $300 this summer because there is not enough power if the wind stops, according to AEMO. South Australia has fixed the problem with gas and diesel. The advantage of imported diesel has over our own coal is unknown to science, but it is what SA and Tasmania are using. This is insane science. Gas is short term and very expensive. Diesel is wholly imported.

    Why are we advised by AEMO to make our domestic electricity systems dependent on arbitrarily priced imported energy when we are the biggest exporters of coal in the world? That is also nuts and really needs explanation.

    However there is an even deeper concern.

    Malcolm requires the States to agree before he asks his own party? Why?

    Is he changing something in a way forbidden by the Australian Constitution? No previous ACT has required the prior agreement of all the States. Is it a way to bypass his own party room? Have the states called him out on this strategy by demanding that the party room decide first.

    Can anyone explain what is in the NEG which requires the assent of all states? What draconian measure is being enacted, requiring the ceding State control to the Federal government?

    101

    • #
      TdeF

      In fact have the people of Australia been given the privilege of reading the NEG Act being presented to the States for approval? Tony Abbott said it was about 2 pages of electricity prices and 40 pages of incomprehensible Emissions Intensity Scheme. So very similar to the deceitful RET.

      121

    • #
      RickWill

      Can anyone explain what is in the NEG which requires the assent of all states? What draconian measure is being enacted, requiring the ceding State control to the Federal government?

      I believe the States have retained the rights to regulate the retail electricity market. The NEG operates at the retail level. The prime mechanism for implementing rests with the retailers ensuring they have the required mix of generation locked into contracts. That needs COAG Energy Council support.

      I think the only Federal component of legislation for the NEG is to lock in the RET as the Paris targets are Federal domain.

      An important feature of electricity retailing is the disconnection process. That is an area where the States maintain a close watch.

      20

  • #
    TdeF

    Of course Bill Shorten may want the powers granted by the States to permit the NEG to operate.

    Bill may instruct the Labor states to accept the NEG because it makes him more powerful after the next election and the NEG is what he wants too. The only resistance to Turnbull’s Labor Green government is exactly that, it is doing precisely what Bill would do. As Australia’s competing Labor Green Prime Minister, Malcolm is seeing just how far he can go with the support of his nominally conservative backbenchers to make Australia a Labor/Green paradise.

    The Constitution does not mention energy, but it does mention mineral resources and that means gas, iron ore, coal and that means power and CO2. The constitution also talks essentially about treating the states fairly, something which might have to be ceded for a real emissions scheme as the coal rich states may have to surrender control over their minerals. Why hasn’t this been published for general scrutiny, or has it?

    A careful reading of the RET is necessary to see what the real plan is, buried in the pages as was the RET which had the explicit intention of shutting down coal, gas, oil, diesel. It was not about adding new sources of power so much as eliminating sources of CO2 and making Energy rich Australia a dependent EU vassal state with no control over prices. That is working as we import diesel and oil. Shutting down the industries is underway nicely, currently being forced to shut intermittently over summer. In the end, all gone.

    71

    • #
      TdeF

      Like the British fishing industry.

      51

      • #
        Dennis

        Like most of the Australian fishing industry forced out of business when Labor created offshore marine parks and banned fishing.

        Remember the buy back of commercial fishing licences? And there are now once viable fishing coops closed down and no fishing trawlers tied up outside.

        90

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      TdeF – as always your analysis and comments are spot on.
      For myself I cannot see an answer other than to vote Turnbull and his government out of office for the next term at least.
      I am prepared to put up with anything other than the BS being served up by this present government.
      Regards GeoffW

      80

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    NEG . . . there’s only one thing that this ‘guarantees’ and that is bigger profits for AGL and the like. Shame on our government !!
    GeoffW

    70

  • #
    pat

    CAGW = RE!

    9 Aug: CBC: Thomson Reuters: Sea level rise ‘overblown,’ solar energy ‘dumb,’ conference of climate change deniers, Trump officials hear
    White House officials join event mocking climate change science and renewable power
    (by Collin Eaton; Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Paul Thomasch)

    PIC: Jason Funes, an official from the U.S. Department of the Interior, addressed the America First Energy Conference in Louisiana, where climate change deniers blasted the United Nations and renewable power

    Pumping carbon dioxide into the air makes the planet greener; the United Nations puts out fake science about climate change to control the global energy market; and wind and solar energy are simply “dumb.”
    These are among the messages that flowed from the America First Energy Conference in New Orleans this week, hosted by some of the country’s most vocal climate change doubters and attended by a handful of Trump administration officials.

    The second annual conference, organized by the conservative think tank the Heartland Institute, pulled together speakers from JunkScience, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the Center For Industrial Progress, along with officials from the U.S. Department of Interior and the White House…

    The U.S. officials who joined this year included White House special assistant Brooke Rollins, Interior Department Assistant Secretary Joe Balash, and Jason Funes, an assistant in the office of external affairs at Interior…

    “The deep state is real,” said Congressman Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican, addressing the conference. “They’re certainly anti-fossil fuel.”…
    “Oil production under President Trump has increased two million barrels per day since the beginning of his administration,” Funes said. “The U.S. is exporting four times as much oil as it exported a decade ago.”…
    “Last year, this administration rolled back 22 regulations for every one that it proposed,” Balash said. “Unfortunately, I think we need about a decade of that to get back to a reasonable place.”…
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-conference-new-orleans-1.4779156?cmp=rss

    following not in CBC piece:

    10 Aug: Reuters: At ‘America First Energy Conference’, solar power is dumb, climate change is fake
    by Collin Eaton; Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Paul Thomasch
    (Republican Congressman Clay)Higgins joked about renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, saying there is probably a conference somewhere in the United States where people are talking about “how the future of the world’s engine will be provided by rainbow dust and unicorn milk.”
    David Legates, professor of climatology at the University of Delaware, argued that increased carbon dioxide emissions will not only leave the planet unharmed, but benefit plant life by allowing them to consume water more efficiently.
    “So, you would expect, therefore, that this will be a greener planet,” Legates said.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange/at-america-first-energy-conference-solar-power-is-dumb-climate-change-is-fake-idUSKBN1KU1Y1

    40

  • #
    PeterS

    The ALP states have endorsed the NEG. It must mean it’s aligned with the left’s anti-coal pro-renewables agenda. It’s now time for those in the LNP who are dead against this agenda to come out and turn the boat around. If they fail because of insufficient numbers then they have only one option remaining if they really care for this nation – leave the party and join some other party, such as ON and ACP.
    PS: I prepared this post hours ago expecting the NEG to be approved by the states.

    40

  • #
    • #
      TdeF

      Amazing. As Josh Frydenberg said plainly, Anna Marsden is now going to look very closely at what they will do with $444Million.
      What?? I would have thought that was all settled in great detail before anyone found $444,000,000 of public cash instantly in their bank account!

      My respect for Josh Frydenberg is now zero. He has been destroyed by the Turnbulls, another loyal minister to a dictator. Philanthropist Michael Myer is exactly right. This enormous gift is unthinkable. Myer was a director of the group.

      Frydenberg’s government, the Turnbull government has no idea what the Foundation is going to do with the money if Anna Marsden has no idea! This is unconscionable, half a billion dollars play money. Sure, a great day for UNESCO, for science, for the Barrier reef. A government out of public control or due diligence handing out billions for nothing at all.

      81

      • #
        TdeF

        As for winning the lottery, the biggest lottery in Australia was $112 million shared four ways, so this is 16x bigger than the biggest lottery in Australian history. Of course she has no idea what they are going to do with the money, except spend it.
        You could buy 400 homes in Townsville, one for each Green turtle. Or put a $400 bounty each on a million dead star of thorns starfish. They would not live long.

        31

      • #
        TdeF

        Can you imagine fronting up to a government committee and saying you wanted half a billion dollars cash today with only 6 people and without a plan?

        Frydenberg strongly defends handing over the money, all the money and at once. He says there is government oversight and a 100 page document and so clearly he is happy with what will happen to the money even though he does not posses any explanation. The company getting the cash has no specific idea either. God help us.

        31

        • #
          TdeF

          Sorry. Sediments. Crown of thorns starfish. That should cover it. Now where’s the cash? How do you even handle a bank account with $444,000,000 in it? Do you put any on term deposit? How much in the cheque account? Do you bother with dual signatures? What about income on the money, does that go to the employees or the foundation or directly to the turtles?

          31

          • #
            Dennis

            Apparently the GBRF normally has operating expenses amounting to over 40% of donations however they must improve, the $444 million grant conditions provides for no more than 10% operating expenses allowance.

            So over the 6 years the money is scheduled to be spent the 6 staff members and non-executive directors will have to make do with only a paltry $44.4 million.

            Oh well, maybe invested wisely they can use the interest earned too, fortunately for them the government has remitted the whole $444 million in the current financial year.

            By the way, Minister Friedenberg could not explain on Radio 2GB why there was no tender process involved but elsewhere Minister Pyne assured an interviewer that there was a tender.

            Hmmm.

            20

            • #
              TdeF

              So far they have been disposing of $5Million a year on average, private and government donations. 40% of that is $2Million, wages for 6 people plus overheads? Lots of overheads.

              However getting rid of 40% of $444Million is more difficult.

              It is all high farce when no one was asking for half a billion dollars, they have no idea what to do with it all and it was all paid over already, for no good reason. The interest on the money alone is more than they are used to handling. Insane.

              21

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes, Frydenberg was right. It was all in the budget as reported by the SMH.

      “The partnership, which includes a $444 million deal with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation and a $56 million boost to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, matches a $500 million commitment made by Labor in 2016, but will be spent mostly in 2018-19, compared with Labor’s pledge over five years.”

      So it has been spent. $444million has been give to six people who have no idea what to do with it.

      However the useful suspects have great ideas..

      “The World Wildlife Fund Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation have estimated that $475 million a year is needed to address the reef’s water quality alone.”

      They can build a Yellow Brick Road for Chinese tourists. Real gold bricks.

      22

      • #
        Dennis

        So GBRF has $444 million granted/gifted/donated to them by the government in one lump sum, but the GBRF had no knowledge beforehand and have no idea what to do with the money provided by taxpayers with monies borrowed in our name by the Turnbull Government.

        No doubt GBRF will invest the money until a use is found and earn interest on it.

        And taxpayers will pay interest to the lenders.

        Merchant bankers have creative accounting skills don’t they.

        20

  • #
    BoyfromTottenham

    I still have yet to hear any explanation why the LNP (or any other party) won’t talk about abolishing (or even modifying) the LRET. Is it fear of a huge claim from the renewables industry for lost subsidy $billions from the free certificates they get for every MWh they send to the grid? But the subsidy is not paid by the government, it is paid for by electricity retailers (and then passed on to their customers) via a ‘market price for LRET certificates’ mechanism. If this ‘market’ fails – e.g. by the government lowering the number of certificates per MWh, is it then the government’s fault, for which they can be sued? If more retailers decide to pay the $65 / MWh penalty instead of buying certificates at say $85 / MWh, can they likewise be sued by the renewables industry? If not, why aren’t the retailers doing this? Or should retail electricity consumers simply mount a massive class action to sue the government and/or the retailers for forcing up retail electricity prices through the LRET scheme, which is damaging the base load generators and clearly disadvantages retail electricity consumers? Why the silence?

    80

    • #
      yarpos

      Just short term abberation, that $65 fine will be ratcheted up to match or exceed the cert price pretty quickly if need be.

      00

  • #
    pat

    for what it’s worth:

    10 Aug: ABC: Perth weather: City shivers through coldest morning of the year, wettest August since 1945
    By Elva Darnell and staff
    Perth awoke on Friday to its coldest morning of 2018, with the temperature plummeting to just 3.2 degrees Celsius…
    McInerney said it was Perth’s coldest morning since August 2 last year, when the city recorded a temperature of 1.7C…
    The cold front across south-west WA also brought snow to Bluff Knoll in the Great Southern for the second time in a fortnight.
    Another cold night is expected tonight, the BOM said…

    The coldest night since records began at Mount Lawley in 1993 was June 17, 2006, when the temperature fell to -0.7C.
    “The record for August itself was set back in 2000, which was 1.3C, so we do get come cold temperatures every now and then,” Mr McInerney said.
    In addition to the cold snap, the BOM also said Perth was in the middle of its wettest start to August in 73 years.
    The city had recorded 101.6 millimetres of rain up to 9:00am yesterday morning.
    The BOM said it was the wettest first nine days on record going by the Mt Lawley rain gauge, and the wettest in Perth since 1945, when the city received 103.1mm.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-10/perth-records-coldest-morning-of-the-year/10104726

    00

  • #
    pat

    10 Aug: ABC: National Energy Guarantee: States gives conditional support for federal policy
    By political correspondent Louise Yaxley
    But Labor ministers from Victoria and Queensland and the Greens minister from the ACT still have concerns about the NEG.
    Queensland’s acting Energy Minister Cameron Dick said the 26 per cent emissions reduction target is too low…

    Target ‘ludicrously weak’ but ‘no limit on’ investment
    The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) calls that “ludicrously weak” but says compromise could “salvage the NEG as a workable scheme to cut climate pollution”…
    Mr Rattenbury said it showed emissions would drop by 24 per cent without the NEG, so the 26 per cent target means emissions would only go down an extra 2 per cent over 10 years.
    But Mr Frydenberg said nothing in the NEG stops investment in new renewable energy.
    “There is no limit on renewable energy,” he said…

    Mr Rattenbury was also expected to insist that the ACT and other jurisdictions should be able to keep their own stronger targets for cutting emissions, not have them counted as part of the national goal.
    But Tasmania’s Energy Minister Guy Barnett, who was expected to support the NEG today, said it was consistent with his state’s energy policy “where the state will be 100 per cent self-sufficient in renewable energy generation, while delivering the lowest regulated electricity prices in Australia by 2022″.

    Melbourne University Climate and Energy College senior adviser Simon Holmes à Court disputed that, saying the NEG proposal assumed Tasmania’s “Battery of the Nation” pumped hydro project would not proceed.
    Mr Holmes à Court said of six or seven pumped hydro projects planned throughout Australia, only Snowy Hydro 2.0 was expected to proceed…

    Opponents of the NEG say they cannot properly judge its cost and effectiveness because they have not seen all the figures underlying it.
    Federal Greens MP Adam Bandt will push in Parliament on Monday for the full modelling of the NEG to be released “for proper scrutiny by experts and politicians expected to vote on it”…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-10/no-guarantee-for-the-governments-national-energy-guarantee/10094920

    10

  • #
    Don A

    Dear Jo, I have just been sent this https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/rush-limbaugh-falsely-claims-there-is-no-evidence-of-human-caused-global-warming/ and it goes against all we (your group) understand. Can you offer it up to them for evaluation and comment as it is all a bit much for me, and I would like to refute it where it can be done. But not without help.
    It would be greatly appreciated, but I know there is much else going on. Cheers Don

    00

  • #
    Shreiking Wombat

    Who funds you?

    [Who funds you and your slow auto-bot repeat? - Jo]

    00

  • #
    pat

    there’s lots of new info on the Great Barrier Reef Foundation/Turnbull connections, such as:

    behind paywall:

    PM fends off Lucy’s links to $444m reef grant recipients
    The Australian · 14 hours ago
    Malcolm Turnbull’s office has confirmed that two of the directors of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation — the recipient of a $444 million grant from his government awarded without tender — may have been hosted at the Prime Minister’s home by wife Lucy.
    The Australian can reveal the head of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation’s philanthropy committee, Stephen Fitzgerald, a one-time head of Mr Turnbull’s former investment bank Goldman Sachs, was on the board of the European Business Advisory Council at the same time as Mrs Turnbull.
    Mr Fitzgerald is also on the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre in Sydney — where Mrs Turnbull is patron — and was on that council while Mrs Turnbull held the role of deputy chair between 2012 and 2015.
    The chair of the philanthropy committee for the Great Barrier Reef Foundation before Mr Fitzgerald, Stephen Roberts, was also on the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre at the same time Mrs Turnbull held ceremonial roles. Mr Roberts resigned from his foundation role in June after being charged with ­alleged criminal cartel conduct…

    HOWEVER, JUST LOOKING AT THE FOUNDATION’S BOARD MEMBERS, E.G.:

    Great Barrier Reef Foundation: Our Governance
    Board of Directors
    Grant King
    Grant has extensive experience in the Australian energy industry. He was Managing Director of Origin Energy Limited from February 2000 until his retirement in October 2016. He was formerly General Manager, AGL Gas Companies where he held a number of management positions over a 17 year period; a Director of the Origin Foundation and is a member of the University of NSW Foundation. He also holds a position as Professor of Energy Engineering in the School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering at the University of NSW and runs his own advisory business, GK Advisory Pty Ltd…

    Amanda McCluskey
    Amanda is the Head of Sustainable Funds Group and Chair of Stewart Investors where she is responsible for leading and supporting the investment strategy and research process. Prior to this, Amanda was Head of Responsible Investment at Colonial First State Global Asset Management and also gained fund management experience at Portfolio Partners and BT Financial Group.
    ***She was the founding Deputy Chair of the Investor Group on Climate Change, was on the board of the National Climate change Adaptation Research Facility and the Climate Change and Business Centre. Amanda was one of the first Australians to participate in the Al Gore Climate Leadership Program and is also a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader…
    ETC ETC
    https://www.barrierreef.org/the-foundation/our-governance

    20

  • #
    PeterS

    As soon as I read ” It is an unequivocal fact…” at the start I stopped reading the rest. Anyone who says such a thing with regards to the idea that global warming is caused by mankind clearly doesn’t know what they are talking about.

    30

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: 2mins02secs: 9 Aug: Ten News: AGL Faces Customer Backlash After Bumper Profit
    As Sydney families struggle with crippling electricity bills, one of the nation’s biggest power companies revealed today it’s now making more money than it knows what to do with…
    https://tenplay.com.au/news/sydney/2018/8/9/agl-faces-customer-backlash-after-bumper-profit

    9 Aug: InDaily: SA welfare groups urge caution over ‘unfair’ energy guarantee
    The South Australian Council of Social Service and Uniting Communities have urged the State Government to consider what they describe as “critical” changes to the National Energy Guarantee to protect the interests of South Australians on low incomes…

    In a letter sent to Marshall and state energy minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan on Monday, SACOSS CEO Ross Womersley warned that costs associated with the transition to the national guarantee could fall on South Australia’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged low-income households.
    “People who experience poverty and disadvantage will be most affected by climate change impacts because they are least able to cope, adapt and recover,” Womersley wrote.

    “For this reason, we support the development of an emissions reduction mechanism in the electricity sector that is able to meet future emissions reduction targets and which has bipartisan support to provide durability.

    “However, we are concerned that the proposed target of 26 per cent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2030 is too low and will not drive the necessary emissions reduction to contribute to Australia’s short and long-term commitments to the Paris Agreement.”
    https://indaily.com.au/news/2018/08/09/sa-welfare-groups-urge-caution-over-unfair-energy-guarantee/

    Womersley last year:

    1 Aug 2017: Solar panels not benefiting poor who can’t afford them, SACOSS says
    By Chris McLoughlin
    Low-income households unable to afford solar panels on their homes are bearing the brunt of higher costs of living, the South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS) has told a electricity forum organised by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
    SACOSS chief executive Ross Womersley said the problem was caused by tariffs paid to households generating excess electricity from solar panels which was fed back into the power grid.

    “Over time some of the generous green schemes that we’ve introduced — including South Australia’s premium feed-in tariff which pays solar consumers many times the cost of energy and is funded disproportionately by non-solar households — is driving prices increases in the South Australian context,” Mr Womersley said…
    Meanwhile, South Australian households will be bracing for sharp rises in power bills with retail prices due to rise as much as 20 per cent during the September quarter.

    00

    • #
      pat

      Womersley quoted in this one too. has Fairfax forgotten it used to publish pieces like this?

      Jun 2016: SMH: Renewables playing havoc with power prices
      By Brian Robins
      The surge in renewable energy such as wind farms in South Australia has left households with whipsawing electricity bills as power companies push through a round of steep price rises.
      AGL, the dominant supplier in the South Australian market, is hiking its charges by 10 to 12 per cent from the beginning of July, well ahead of the 7 per cent rise flagged by Origin Energy. EnergyAustralia is to outline its new tariffs later in the week.

      The explosion in wind energy capacity in South Australia has destabilised its energy market, and the changes unfolding will be salutary following the Victorian government’s move this week for renewables to supply a quarter of the state’s needs by 2020 and 40 per cent by 2025.
      “South Australia is the market at the end of the world,” says Gavin Dufty, director of policy and research at the St Vincent de Paul Society. “It has moved so far ahead of the rest of Australia in terms of changes of generation, as wind energy forced the closure of coal-fired power stations.
      “Not only are they paying through the nose for their electricity, but with large price declines last year, and now the big rises this year – you can’t get stability in household budgets.
      “It is undermining the credibility of the energy markets, which is no good for anybody. The state and energy ministers need to come together to look at measures to help stabilise the situation.” …

      Surging power prices have pushed households to install solar panels…
      “Those with money will do that and will be OK,” says Ross Womersley, the executive director of the South Australian Council for Social Service. “But the people we worry about can’t afford to make that investment and will be left holding up the grid at increasingly expensive prices.”…

      David Rylah, trading and pricing manager at specialty energy adviser Energy Action, said the South Australian experience indicates what may unfold in Victoria as it pushes further into using renewable energy.
      “Victoria wants increased renewables so you could extrapolate that brown coal generators may come to the end of their economic life,” he said.
      “Therefore the South Australian experience may extrapolate to the Victorian experience. In South Australia, if the wind is blowing, the generators are on. If not, they don’t. It is either feast or famine.”
      Large, baseload power generators enable electricity retailers to commit to supplying households and businesses at competitive prices. But renewables supply only intermittently, which pushes up the price the retailers can “hedge” or write firm supply contracts at.

      “There is a shortage of hedge product relative to demand in South Australia,” Rylah said. “That has been evident since last November, but households have been insulated until now, with the contract being reset.”…
      https://www.smh.com.au/business/renewables-playing-havoc-with-power-prices-20160616-gpkshm.html

      10

  • #
    David Maddison

    Do the AGL accounts include revenue from REC’s?

    11

  • #
    David Maddison

    Here is the AGL Annual Report which contains financials but it did not list revenue from REC’s as farvas I could tell.

    11

  • #
    pat

    10 Aug: Bloomberg: The SEC Is Intensifying Its Probe of Tesla
    By Matt Robinson, Benjamin Bain, and Dana Hull
    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is intensifying its scrutiny of Tesla Inc.’s public statements in the wake of Elon Musk’s provocative tweet Tuesday about taking the electric-car company private, according to two people familiar with the matter.
    SEC enforcement attorneys in the San Francisco office were already gathering general information about Tesla’s public pronouncements on manufacturing goals and sales targets, according to the people who asked not to be named because the review is private.
    Now, attorneys from that office are also examining whether Musk’s tweet about having funding secured to buy out the company was meant to be factual, according to one of the people…

    The SEC inquiry is preliminary and won’t necessarily lead to anything more formal. Tesla, which hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing, declined to comment. Judith Burns, an SEC spokeswoman, also declined to comment…

    Tesla stock fell 4.8 percent to $352.45 in Thursday trading amid mounting doubts about Musk’s ability to buy out shareholders at $420, as he’d suggested in his Tuesday tweet. Declines over the past two days have erased the jump in the share price following his statement that he’d secured funding for taking the company private.
    Musk has offered no evidence to back up the assertion, and there have been no public announcements that anyone is backing the plan…
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-09/tesla-is-said-to-face-broader-sec-scrutiny-over-musk-statements

    Australia to the rescue?

    10 Aug: Channel Nine: Tesla would consider Australian production
    Electric car company Tesla would consider manufacturing vehicles in Australia, “if the opportunity arose”, a Senate inquiry has been told.
    Telsa senior manager Sam McLean said there were advantages to Australian production, including the availability of a skilled workforce and easy access to lithium and nickel, important to the manufacture of vehicle batteries.

    But Mr McLean said there were also disadvantages including the size of the domestic market for electric cars, currently well under one per cent of total sales.
    “In Australia, given the size of the market and how much it lags the rest of the world, a relatively small proportion of manufacturing would be absorbed by the domestic market,” he said.
    “If Australia wants to be more attractive to electric vehicle manufacturing it will need a more mature and faster growing electric vehicle market.”

    The Senate inquiry, which held its first hearing in Adelaide on Friday, is examining the scope for the greater uptake of electric cars and other vehicles including buses and shuttles and for greater local involvement in manufacturing and the component supply chain.
    Chair and independent Senator Tim Storer has called for Australia to join the shift towards electric vehicles or face getting left behind in the global rush to embrace the new technology…

    He pointed to a bi-partisan plan developed in New Zealand in 2016 to double the number of electric vehicles on the road every year.
    ***While in the UK targets of 50 to 70 per cent market penetration by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2040 had recently been set…

    He said a plan in Australia should set a clear sales targets for electric vehicles and include investment in electric vehicle infrastructure.
    He said government fleet purchases were also important to fuel the second hand market and greater public education would help people understand the benefits of shifting to electric cars.
    https://finance.nine.com.au/2018/08/10/13/26/tesla-would-consider-australian-production

    10

    • #
      Dennis

      Why did General Motors Holden, Ford, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Chrysler, Volkswagen, British Motor Corporation and others abandon Australia as a manufacturing base?

      After all they were taxpayer subsidised, protected by import duty and supported by government fleet operators federal, state and local government.

      Watch for the hidden agenda, EV like it or not coming our way.

      Already the government has allocated over $300 million to promote EV to private sector fleet operators, Macquarie Bank Leasing received $100 million.

      Wait for the cunning tax impositions on ICEV vehicles via the stealth carbon tax and road tolls levied via the GPS system in passenger vehicles and other vehicles.

      The next RET or EVT.

      20

      • #
        Dennis

        By the way, where’s the electricity going to come from to service an EV national fleet replacing ICEV?

        20

  • #
    pat

    7 Aug: The Local France: Why do so many people in France hate wind farms?
    In France opposition against wind power is growing, rallying groups as varied as libertarians, Nimbys (“Not In My Back Yard”) and mainstream politicians.
    France gets most of its energy from nuclear power, and resistance to wind power has been long standing.
    But in recent years, those campaigning against this clean source of energy have become much more diverse…

    “From bourgeois people to militants of the far-left, anarchists, fishermen and rich landowners, opposition against wind power has become much more ecclectic,” wrote Le Figaro (LINK).
    “What do these opponents have against wind power? There’s the fact that it is ugly, its proximity to people’s houses and historical monuments, the noise, the’ blinding’ lights and the risk of corruption and conflict of interest on the part of politicians involved,” the newspaper explained…

    Setting up wind farms in France requires patience.
    Despite the fact that polls show the French ***are overall in favour of wind power – an industry that currently provides 10,000 jobs in France – it can take up to nine years to get a project up and running.
    That’s more than double the time it takes in Germany, Europe’s leading wind power-producing nation, where it takes only four years…

    Some environmentalists also worried about the impact of turbines on wildlife.
    Nowadays, mainstream politicians have also jumped into the fore.
    In a column published a few weeks ago in Le Figaro newspaper, 10 MPs from both the ruling party and the opposition asked the governmnent to halt all plans for onshore and some offshore wind farms near the coast.
    “France is currently going through a real crisis in terms of the setting up of new wind farms,” the politicians wrote.
    “As representatives of the people, we have seen how angry people get when plans to build wind farms on land or by the sea are mooted. The social acceptance level is so low that appeals are lodged against 70 per cent of them”.
    That figure is up from 50 percent five years ago.
    Dealing with legal objections is a major hurdle for wind farm developers.

    Over the past two years, activists fearing damage to the landscape filed legal objections which blocked wind farms near historic sites such as Mont Saint Michel in Normandy. An energy company was also forced to abandon a project near a World War One battlefield.
    And then there are other, less obvious, reasons for protest.
    In early June, explosives were found in a wind turbine in Eastern France days after another in the same wind farm was completely destroyed by a fire.
    Responsibility for the attack was claimed by a libertarian organisation which said it was fighting against ‘dominations’, Ouest France reported.

    Despite such fierce opposition, France still intends to go ahead with its plans to increase wind in its energy mix.
    At the end of June, Emmanuel Macron announced that six offshore wind farms had been given the go ahead, and are set to be switched on from 2021
    https://www.thelocal.fr/20180807/why-do-some-people-in-france-hate-wind-farms-so-much

    30

  • #
    TdeF

    Beyond parody, Victorian ‘energy minister’ Lily D’Ambrosio after the COAG meeting.

    “we won’t sign up to any scheme that threatens Victoria’s renewable energy industry and the thousands of jobs it’s creating in our state’

    So the massive electricity prices in Victoria are creating ‘thousands of jobs’? Where? In the public service?

    The irony is that they cannot kill the NEG as it is exactly what they want to kill coal in Victoria and force everyone to solar and wind and bicycles.

    71

  • #
    pat

    10 Aug: Reuters: China promoting own technical standards to aid nuclear push overseas
    by David Stanway
    China’s State Council said it would promote the use of China’s nuclear industry’s independent technological standards worldwide, aiming to play “a leading role” in the global standardization process by 2027.

    Its two major nuclear project developers, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and the China General Nuclear Project Corporation (CGN), are jointly promoting an advanced third-generation reactor known as the Hualong One to overseas clients, with CGN aiming to deploy the technology at a proposed nuclear project at Bradwell in England.
    The push to extend Chinese technological standards was disclosed in new cabinet guidelines published late on Thursday.

    China aims to raise its total nuclear capacity to 58 gigawatts (GW) by the end of the decade, up from 37 GW at the end of June.
    Capacity could reach as high as 200 GW by 2030, and China also has ambitions to dominate the global nuclear industry via its homegrown technologies.
    https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-china-nuclear-standards/china-promoting-own-technical-standards-to-aid-nuclear-push-overseas-idUKKBN1KV05O

    10

  • #
    pat

    9 Aug: Global Times: US coal heading for China amid new tariffs loom
    Source: Reuters/Global Times
    At least four ships carrying US coal worth $30 million are headed to China as Beijing prepares to hit imports with hefty 25-percent tariffs, threatening a niche supply of the fuel even as China’s appetite for foreign coal shows no sign of abating.
    The vessels, carrying a combined 335,000 tons of coal, are the only confirmed cargoes in transit from the US to China, and they are scheduled to land in time to avoid the new duties…
    The US shipped 3.2 million tons of coal to China last year, up from 700 tons in 2016, making it China’s seventh-largest supplier, although well behind top supplier Australia with nearly 80 million tons…
    http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1114702.shtml

    a fascinating piece, worth reading in full:

    10 Aug: SouthChinaMorningPost: China should cut its losses in the trade war by conceding defeat to Donald Trump
    (Xu Yimiao is an independent China-based researcher)
    Xu Yimiao writes that China is running out of retaliatory tariffs against the US and has watched other major parties like the EU and Japan close ranks against it. Before the trade war gets more severe, Beijing’s leaders should seek direct talks with Trump, and may have to swallow their pride…

    There seems to be recognition that the previous playbook drafted by hardliners has not worked and Beijing needs to change its strategy.
    Beijing’s strategy of a tit-for-tat retaliation over tariffs has clearly failed. In fact, this strategy escalated the conflict…

    Although there is still a chance that the Trump administration will start hitting other counties with tariffs again, once more giving China hope of allying with these other nations, it is clear that they are unlikely to stand with China on other fronts. For example, it is reported that from Berlin to London, the Europeans are tightening their scrutiny over Chinese investments in the name of national security, a move following US footsteps…

    To get out of this predicament, Beijing probably needs to deal with Trump directly, figure out what he needs to declare a win and create conditions for that. Of course, allowing Trump to declare victory might be tough and even embarrassing for Beijing, but sometimes it is the best choice to stop losses in one trade and hope to profit at another time
    https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/united-states/article/2158963/china-should-cut-its-losses-trade-war

    20

  • #
    pat

    plenty of lecturing from the writer, but some interesting figures:

    9 Aug: China’s Belt and Road is conduit for polluting investments
    China’s Belt and Road is spreading polluting investments around the world
    by Kelly Sims Gallagher, Professor of Energy & Environmental Policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University
    China’s overseas investment flows hit a record $183bn in 2016, second only to the US and representing a 44 per cent increase over the previous year, according to Unctad…

    For energy-specific projects, Chinese-led policy banks lent $160bn in overseas finance for the energy sector since 2000, nearly equalling total energy finance from the World Bank and regional development banks during the same period. Some 80 per cent of China’s overseas energy investments are in fossil fuels, compared with only 3 per cent in solar and wind and 17 per cent in hydro…

    China’s policy banks, specifically the China Development Bank and China ExIm Bank and state-pwned commercial banks like the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China still actively lend for coal-fired power plants…

    In 2016, colleagues and I determined that between 2001 and 2016, Chinese financial institutions supported the construction of more than 50 coal-fired power plants abroad that were either under construction or operational.
    A majority of these power plants, or 58 per cent, used sub-critical coal technology, which is the most energy inefficient form of coal-fired power plant and, therefore, the type that is most carbon intensive. We then estimated that on an annual basis, this fleet of mokre than 50 coal-fired power plants would release nearly 600m metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, which is equivalent to 11 per cent of total US emissions in 2015…

    Policies specifically aimed at limiting emissions of climate-altering greenhouse gases from China’s FDI do not exist…
    It is important to remember however that the predominance of China’s global energy investments between 2000 and 2016 were in fossil fuels – $54.6bn in oil, $43.5bn in coal, $18.8bn in natural gas – compared with $2.4bn in solar, $1.7bn in wind, and $24.9bn in hydropower..
    https://www.ft.com/content/f965fa22-9be4-11e8-9702-5946bae86e6d

    10

  • #
    pat

    9 Aug: The Street: BP Is ‘On The Cusp’ of Delivering Huge Oil and Gas Results – Goldman
    Goldman Sachs is very bullish on oil giant BP.
    By Jacob Sonenshine
    With a “buy” rating on the oil giant, analyst Michele Della Vigna wrote in a note to clients that “BP is on the cusp of delivering one of the industry’s strongest pipelines of new oil & gas projects.” That, coupled with several other factors, indicated to Della Vigna that BP could be headed for a “free-cash-flow sweet spot.”…

    Record Oil and Gas Pipeline Projects
    “The delivery of a record pipeline of upstream projects is progressively bringing BP closer to the sweetspot of its E&P transformation, which we believe will materialize in 2019, with production from nine major upstream projects rapidly ramping up to peak capacity, and capital expenditure commitments falling,” the analyst wrote. And those projects are simply better than the competition, he added. “We estimate that BP’s portfolio of new projects is more profitable today and is now among the best in the industry.”…
    https://www.thestreet.com/markets/bp-is-on-the-cusp-of-delivering-huge-pipeline-results-14679132

    lots of detail in the following:

    10 Aug: IG Markets: Is investment in renewable energy drying up?
    The success of renewable energy until now has been largely thanks to government subsidies, cheap debt and an ever-improving perception amongst the public. But as the financial support fades and interest rates start to rise, there are concerns for the future of renewable energy as the industry looks to stand on its own two feet
    by Joshua Warner, Market Analyst, London
    China’s reputation for using clean energy is often questioned, and the country is still opening new coal plants, but the country’s growing expenditure on renewables is so significant that without it, the total invested worldwide would have fallen last year…

    Although India and Brazil are the two other major developing nations showing the strongest levels of investment into renewable energy, the pair’s combined investment of $17 billion last year represented just 5% of the worldwide total, with industries in both countries hit by setbacks in recent years…
    Under plans initiated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India is aiming to install a staggering 100GW of solar capacity by 2022. However, it is well behind after overall renewables investment dropped 20% last year to $10.9 billion…

    India may be raising its game when it comes to renewables, but the country has been defiant before, arguing that the developed world had no right to tell countries like India they weren’t allowed to chase economic growth using their fossil fuel resources like their western counterparts had been allowed to. It was one of the most resistant parties to sign up to the Paris Climate Agreement, only agreeing after being given concessions, and many of the new coal and gas plants that are still being built around the world are being built in India, neutralising the environmental benefits derived from new solar and wind.

    In Brazil, investment in renewables climbed 8% last year to $6 billion, but were still below the $11.5 billion of annual investment at its peak way back in 2008 when the country was experiencing a biofuel boom supported by generous government subsidies…

    Investment in renewable energy has been far more consistent in the US than most other nations, staying between $33 billion to $49 billion since 2010. Assistance has also been in abundance, through tax incentives and green stimulus programmes. Two drivers keeping the market happy are the production tax credit for wind and the investment tax credit for solar, which has incentivised investment…

    As these were extended for at least five years in late 2015 the immediate outlook for the US renewables industry looks bright, but companies are trying to pick the perfect moment, waiting as long as they can in order to buy equipment (which continues to fall in price) at a cheaper rate without missing out on the closing window of tax incentives. This suggests that there could be a late boom in the final year before these incentives go up for review again, when it will be more likely than ever that they will be scrapped…

    Renewable energy market in Europe: investment levels plunging
    The overall fall in investment from developed economies was down to Europe, specifically the UK and (to a lesser degree) Germany. The region’s investment fell 36% last year to $40.9 billion, caused by UK investment plummeting 65% to $7.6 billion after the subsidies that had been supporting onshore wind and larger solar projects were closed in early 2016…

    When Europe’s spending on renewables was at its peak, around 2010-2011, countries including Spain, Germany and Italy were ploughing in huge sums when the price of renewables was at its highest. This goes some way to explaining the substantial drop in investment from Europe, although it will still be of some concern. The region accounted for only 15% of global investment last year, the lowest figure on record, compared to 45% in 2011…

    Australia, Mexico, and Egypt other regional leaders in renewable energy
    Outside of the main developed and developing nations there are other countries spread across the continents that have made notable progress of late. Investment in Asia Pacific/Oceania was largely flat year-on-year (YoY) outside of China and India, but Australia’s $8.5 billion worth of investment was a new record for the country as spending on both solar and wind doubled…

    However, the renewable energy market is about to enter its most crucial moment yet. The industry has had everything it needs to flourish so far, with subsidies providing projects with a safety net and record-low interest rates providing the cheap debt that is integral to funding renewable energy projects (which demand very high upfront capital costs). But with central banks starting to raise interest rates there are concerns that the vital investment that the industry relies on could become considerably more costly over the coming years – right at the time that governments are cutting subsidies and other support for the sector, convinced it has matured enough to look after itself. While the industry has been able to depend on governments and banks, now they will have to rely on market prices and their ability to stand on their own two feet up against fossil fuels.

    Government policy is more certain in some places than others. Areas like Europe have clear ambitions as part of the wider Paris Climate Agreement, but the future is clouded elsewhere following US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the deal, throwing the country’s commitment to climate change up in the air. If renewable energy is to properly grow then it needs a long-term framework it can rely on.
    https://www.ig.com/au/commodities-news/is-investment-in-renewable-energy-drying-up-180809

    10

  • #
    pat

    AUDIO: 14mins22secs: 10 Aug: 2GB: Ben Fordham: ‘It achieves nothing’: Liberal MP savages Paris Agreement
    Liberal MP Craig Kelly has savaged Australia’s involvement in the Paris Agreement, saying it is “achieves nothing”…
    But Mr Kelly says major emitters like China and India have done nothing to reduce their impact, and Australia is stuck with “the most onerous targets per capita in the world”.

    The Member for Hughes tells Ben Fordham we should no longer be apart of the deal.
    “I’m not the prime minister, but I think we should pull out of Paris.
    “I think it’s damaging to the economy and I think it achieves nothing.
    “There’s no environmental advantage of it.”…

    The Coalition party room will consider the policy in Canberra next week, but Mr Kelly says he’s yet to see the fine print and won’t be willing to vote in favour until he sees it.
    “I want to be able to see the full details,” he tells Ben.
    “I think it’s not quite reasonable if we see the legislation… 9 o’clock on Monday morning and are expected to vote on it, sort of by 10:30.”

    When asked by a listener whether he knows any other colleagues who are prepared to cross the floor on the issue, Mr Kelly’s answer is simple.
    “Yes.”
    https://www.2gb.com/it-achieves-nothing-liberal-mp-savages-paris-agreement/

    10

  • #
    pat

    repeating this, as I posted it as a reply to David Maddison earlier, but he doesn’t seem to have seen it:

    Facebook: Craig Kelly: 21h ago: EXTREME GREEN RENT-SEEKING
    AGL ANNUAL REPORT p.19 : ‘’Government grant revenue of $223 million was recognised within revenue”.
    I’m lost for words.
    https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/photos/a.117937578400885.1073741828.117871478407495/1002640489930585/?type=3

    10