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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Solar Power hits the death spiral vertical rise in Australia

Solar PanelsSolar installations are rapidly accelerating in Australia, surging in the last quarter by an extraordinary 482MW. This is partly due to rapidly rising electricity costs, but in the last quarter, especially amplified by an extra $2250 subsidy in Victoria which adds to current subsidies like the SRES (RET) which already cover around half the cost of installation.

This is obviously a market destroying practice but will be hailed as evidence that solar power is “surging” due to “falling prices” and “increasing demand”. More fake news.

In the land of the Renewable-Crash-Test-Dummy we’re hitting the death spiral. Every installation costs non-solar owners more (with the tally at $200pa and rising fast) and there are fewer non-solar owners left to pay. Obviously, the whole market has to be changed to ensure that solar owners pay a fair share of networking and backup costs.

If solar power was cheap, useful or competitive, it wouldn’t need the subsidies. Instead, the nation keeps adding more useless infrastructure and wondering why the price of electricity is rising.

Solar panel installations, Australia, Graph.

Solar panel installations, Australia, Graph.

Data: Australian PV Institute

The tally of solar stupidity

Solar is inefficient, wilderness destroying, money-hungry, useless, grid wrecking equipment

Without subsidies the German Solar industry lost 80,000 jobs in a bloodbath. Last year China cut solar subsidies to reduce the price of electricity and PV projects dropped 43%, and solar stocks plummeted. Spain added a solar tax to recover some of the costs and the lost 65,000 renewable jobs. In Japan fifty solar PV companies went broke in 2017 as subsidies ended. Meanwhile in Australia, we’re we are so stupid we are putting subsidizing solar panels on top of subsidized irrigated farmland, and when we aren’t destroying farmland we destroy trees instead. Taxpayers even gave $300m to a Saudi billionaire for a solar plant that made a bare 2% of old dying coal plant’s power.

Solar panels waste so much land, the UK government had to hide their own comparisons of the land needed for solar compared to nuclear power. Even with subsidies solar farms collapse sometimes because the maintenance costs were too high, including unspecified hail damage, and shonky bubble-market faulty installations which sometimes cause house fires. If the shonky installation doesn’t burn the house down, the batteries might insteadRooftop solar is destroying baseload profitability, raising the prices of all other cheaper generators and causing voltage and frequency surges, and is expected to cause blackouts. Adding intermittent power causes supply squeezes that allow giant corporations to scam a billion dollars in price spikes for a single day’s electricity. For people who really hate the environment solar PV is probably the most expensive and useless way to reduce CO2 - in 2018 all 2 million solar panels cut Australian total CO2 emissions by a pathetic 1%.

Solar Panels are essentially useless most hours of the day, most days of the year, and sometimes the entire Eastern Seaboard of solar panels are only working at half speed even at midday. When they are working together they force the grid voltage as high as 253 Volts, making other equipment prone to breaking and even more costly to run. The dangerous voltages triggers some solar panels to cut themselves off, right at the peak time of day when they are actually working. Solar electricity is so unnecessary that when an eclipse wiped out California’s massive solar input, the price of electricity got cheaper.

Australian subsidies are so large, unfair and pointless, in sunny Queensland the state government won’t even tell us how large they are.

 All my posts on solar are spread under the , and

h/t Dave B, and for long advice from ROM (whom we miss greatly!) and TdeF and Robber.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (89 votes cast)
Solar Power hits the death spiral vertical rise in Australia, 9.8 out of 10 based on 89 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y26fqk48

262 comments to Solar Power hits the death spiral vertical rise in Australia

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    CSIRO should have been given the task of developing a Solar energy system.

    A sensible first step would have been to develop a system that was useful in isolated situations where anything New would have beaten existing systems.

    Only when the “bush” system had been proven to be reliable in isolation could it have been applied to the real grid.

    It’s coming apart: watch this space for the recycling dramas for solar rooftop that are about 10 years away.

    It’s coming apart: rooftop solar is such a large part of too many areas that the original systems begin to “opt out” more often.

    Political Electricity has a needed span of 3 years.

    KK

    181

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Australia would have done that once upon a time KK, the CSIRO has a great early track record inventing ,

      A4 DSP chip
      Aerogard, insect repellent
      Atomic absorption spectroscopy
      Biological control of Salvinia
      Development of Linola (a flax variety with low alpha-linolenic acid content) with a longer life used as a stockfeed
      Distance measuring equipment (DME) used for aviation navigation
      Gene shears
      Interscan Microwave landing system, a microwave approach and landing system for aircraft
      Use of myxomatosis and calicivirus to control rabbit numbers
      Parkes Radio Telescope
      The permanent pleat for fabrics
      Polymer banknote
      Relenza flu drug
      Sirosmelt lance
      “Softly” woollens detergent
      Phase-contrast X-ray imaging
      Essential components of Wi-Fi technology
      Method to use titanium in 3D printing[9]
      Ultrabattery

      Then along came the political science of Climate Change.

      322

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Then along came the political science of Climate Change

        Yes, but more likely, then along came Neville Wran, the national president of the Australian Labor Party from 1980 to 1986, and Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) from 1986 to 1991.

        It’s been going pursuing the lefty agenda ever since.

        Gramsci in action.

        213

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Yeah its been used as a political football for so long its difficult to know when the game started, also the privatisation of our Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in 1994 is another victim of political opportunism.

          141

          • #
            Peter C

            privatisation of our Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in 1994

            Was that a good thing or a bad thing?

            CSL was set up Founded in 1916 the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, an Australian government body focused on vaccine manufacture. in the following year……CSL was drawn into a serious public health disaster when a batch of its diphtheria toxin-antitoxin was implicated in the deaths of twelve children in what became known as the ‘Bundaberg tragedy’ of 1928……

            In 1928, CSL also became involved in antivenene (antivenom) manufacture in conjunction with the snake venom research undertaken by Charles Kellaway at the Hall Institute. This led to the successful clinical testing of antivenene against tiger snake Notechis scutatus bite in 1930, and its commercial release in 1931. In 1934, the research on snake venoms was transferred from the Hall Institute to CSL under the direction of former snake showman, Tom ‘Pambo’ Eades.

            Seems like a QUANGO seeking expansion to me.

            It is certainly part of the Liberal Party manifesto that private enterprise should take the risks. not Government. The Libs have forgotten that now. But the Australian Conservatives have not.

            92

            • #
              Yonniestone

              Then the production of vaccines for a large percentage of the population was still being developed, with the improved trial periods and quality controls CSL successfully vaccinated against tetanus, polio, whooping cough through to HIV treatments.

              My point is it was an Australian government body that was actually doing good for people and improving with experience, privatising something for the benefit of a few sometimes means many others lose out.

              50

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        It was an outstanding scientific organisation on the world stage and something for Australians to be proud of.

        The damage that’s been done to it by politicians is almost beyond belief and when I think of it now there’s a feeling that it’s just “average” or “run of the mill” or “half hearted”.

        It should be set loose on developing water retention schemes for our nation, on implementing the introduction of Nuclear power generation and similar.

        But at the moment, it’s just a political ruin.

        KK

        200

        • #
          Peter C

          And yet, the savings to the consumer are there, and not to be sneezed at. The problems with the grid are known and can be overcome, as part of normal upgrades and maintenance.

          The problems which Joanne is writing about are not due to maintenance. The grid was “gold -plated” in Julie Gillard’s time as PM in order to minimise the risk of bushfire claims.

          The savings to the consumer is something that you should explain. What savings? How are they to be obtained?

          110

        • #
          Peter C

          It was an outstanding scientific organisation on the world stage and something for Australians to be proud of.

          I agree KK. But I think that the CSL had outlived it’s usefulness.

          They were set up to do Vaccines, which continued to the end. Then Snake bite anti venom.

          At what point should the government pull back and let the private sector take up the task.

          I would say when it is commercially viable. Maybe even well before if more than one private firm can be sponsored to take up the challenge.

          60

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Peter, when the CSIRO was set up it was a great benefit to Australia, the a small population isolated from the rest of the world found it useful.

            Business will do what business does but CSIRO should be doing the stuff that they can’t do.

            The recent privatised idea of annual new flue vaccines worries me. How well are they tested when pushed out so quickly. Then there are the issues with the antidepressants industry. A dodgy bit of pharmacy stuff there that was discussed here a few years ago.

            Governments are put there to lead, and in many areas CSIRO was used to make Australia a better place.
            A practical, innovative scientific organisation that now seems content to drift along.

            Politicians!!!!!!

            KK

            100

            • #
              Peter C

              KK,

              I agree that the CSL was a benefit , when it was set up.

              CSL should do what business can’t do.

              But what were they doing that at the time they were privatised? Mostly making a pot of money from fractionation of blood products. The very stuff of the private sector, but protected from competition.

              Worries bout testing of Flu vaccines are warranted but you cannot rely on a government institution to ensure that, especially if it regulates itself.

              50

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Regulation of any business by good, honest managers is essential.

                I wasn’t aware of the issues with CSL but it seems to have lost direction under poor management. Government has obviously not provided proper guidance.

                60

      • #
        NuThink

        Neville Wrann, Turnbull’s mate, took over the CSIRO in about 1987. I guess that is when it turned very political.

        80

    • #
      Vladimir

      Does anyone have performance data for Victoria Market solar roof project?
      Must be about 10 years old by – enough to make a judgement…

      50

      • #
        Vladimir

        Apologies for my persistence – beside initial project notification I found a single mention of it on the web: November 2018 tender for new system. What is going on?

        30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      KK,

      Sorry but I beg to differ with you on this one.

      Given that you in Australia , like us in America have had an existing power generation and distribution system running for a lot longer than I’ve been alive and it’s worked all those years without significant problems or doubt about its future viability, let me make a strictly philosophical reply to,

      CSIRO should have been given the task of developing a Solar energy system.

      Why would you do that? I can’t name a single instance of government getting involved in anything that has not made things worse. Government trying to coerce behavior changes in the governed is, first of all, just a damned would-be dictator trying to get control over you and second, it simply doesn’t work. Even the most rural and isolated spots got electricity and if government had to step in an say you will supply them too, fine. But as far as I know that never actually happened, at least here.

      If something, anything, you name it, is viable because there’s a real demand for it, someone will step in and provide it and it will happen because people will be voluntarily spending their money on something they see as beneficial. Witness such things as prostitution, drugs and even worse that thrive in spite of efforts to stop them. When there’s a willing buyer then there’s a willing supplier. Absent the demand for solar panels, who will try to sell them? And if there’s a demand ceated by isolated requirements as you suggest and it can pay a supplier to develop and supply it then it works. Otherwise not.

      What you have the way it’s happening both there and here is people spending their money out of fear of doing without electricity, not spending it voluntarily. I’ve read everything Jo had to say about it and that’s the only possible conclusion.

      Governments are instituted to provide for such things as the common defense, a system of courts and police to insure pubic safety and services that the people cannot provide themselves — streets and highways, etc. Electric power service began here and I’ve no doubt there because someone saw the benefit of it and people would buy it voluntarily for the same reason, they saw the benefit. Government may have the need to set safety standards or do other regulation to keep the playing field level for everyone. But I defy anyone to tell me that government anywhere is doing anyone any good by forcing a change in what works just fine and has worked about as well as it ever could work and done so for so long a time. It ain’t broke and doesn’t need fixing.

      How much do you trust CSIRO? From what I read on this blog I would not trust them to walk dogs. I don’t trust any agency of government here to be working in my interest either.

      Human affairs have never worked smoothly. There are too many conflicting needs that have to be taken care of. Then there are the conflicting wants and one of them is the people I probably don’t have to name who want control over the rest of us and the rest of us who don’t want them controlling us. Why should we give them even an inch of control? If we do they’ll end up having a mile every time. If there are problems it’s because working solutions take time and take support of the people. There was no problem in power generation and distribution that could not be handled without solar or wind mills until climate change suddenly said there was. Talk about your fake news.

      90

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Hi Roy, perhaps I should have started my comment with the statement that I was talking about the “old” CSIRO.
        There are still many areas in Australia that can’t have grid power because they’re too far from main supply areas. To get power they would have to pay personally for the poles and wires.
        Last weekend I managed to get away to stay overnight camping on a farm in the hills west of Newcastle where the nearest power was 5 km down a dirt track. To bring power to the three families sharing the farm would probably cost them $100,000 each.
        All of them use some form of solar panels and battery arrangement.

        The only reason I suggested giving the idealized version of the CSIRO the job of improving that farm scenario is because it would be a much smaller task than their current activity in the development of renewables.
        Basically I had in mind giving them a task that was bound by the economic constraints of the users and by the science.
        CSIRO was once a great thing for Australia but has been brought down, as you say, by the fly in the ointment; Human Nature.
        The current CSIRO is too big, too sure of itself and trading on past glories. It needs to be reset to provide scientific advice and back-up to Australian industry but unfortunately most of our industry has gone overseas.
        Perhaps the CSIRO could, like our industry, be shut down.

        KK

        50

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          KK,

          Maybe you should trot out the old CSIRO and toss the new? ;-)

          Just kidding. It’s probably as impossible to move backward to a better time in Australia as it is here. In fact getting to a better time doesn’t seem to work even going forward.

          30

    • #
      ivan

      KK there is a problem with that, solar panels are a dead loss when trying to produce useful amounts of electricity. The hotter they get the less electricity they produce. This is something we engineers know and understand, it is the same with wind turbines, the hotter the inside of the housing gets the more likely the frequency of the inverters is to change causing more problems with control for the grid operators to deal with. And those are not the only problems see and consider how far Australia has gone to the dogs.
      https://climatechangedispatch.com/green-energy-alarmists-world/

      90

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        An important point Ivan.
        A more sensible approach to isolated power production would almost certainly be diesel generation.

        In the example of camping last weekend the owners had covered one roof with solar panels. Seeing that and knowing about the issues with Solar made me feel uncomfortable.

        KK

        30

        • #

          Does anyone in Australia get annoyed
          by Australian companies shipping coal
          to China, where they burn it
          for inexpensive electric power,
          rather than Australians burning
          their own coal for inexpensive
          electric power at home.

          It seems like China would buy all the coal
          mined in Australia, that was not burned
          in Australia.

          The CO2 emissions would be about the
          same no matter where the coal was burned.

          Wasting money on expensive solar energy
          power, while shipping coal to China seems like
          a “bassackwards” policy that only a socialist
          could invent !

          80

          • #
            Ava

            It is recognised that so called developing countries have to be allowed to develop (ie. burn coal) to reduce poverty. Reducing poverty helps stabilise population. If you want to burn more coal you might try bringing back poverty and start populating.

            00

    • #
      Ben

      The existing reports have it all there ready for those willing to read it.

      http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Planning-and-forecasting/South-Australian-Advisory-Functions

      AEMO 2017 SA renewable energy report:

      “Both wind and rooftop PV generation technologies are intermittent, with output dependent on
      weather conditions:
       The wind contribution to peak demand analysis shows that on average, for 85% of summer peak
      demand periods, wind generation contributed at least 9.4% of South Australia’s registered wind
      capacity (and for winter, 6.7%).
       Similar analysis of expected rooftop PV generation over the past five years indicates that on
      average, for 85% of summer underlying peak demand periods, rooftop PV generation contributed
      at least 1.6% of its estimated capacity.”

      Nameplate capacities of wind and solar (end 2018): Wind = 1809 MW, solar = 930 MW

      So for 85% of peak demand periods (>3000 MW in summer) you get 10% of nameplate capacity from wind (180 MW) and 1.6% nameplate capacity for solar (15 MW).

      Going one obvious step further, therefore to get 85% of peak demand periods in SA supplied 100% from wind and solar, if you had:
      - 10x the wind and solar installed: 1800 + 150 = 1950 MW – not enough
      - 15x: 2700 + 225 = 2925 MW – maybe enough with demand management, but not including electric vehicles

      And that is just for the 85% of peak demand periods – for the rest I suppose interconnectors to Vic brown coal and local gas turbines.

      Now SA is only about 3000 MW in peak in summer, but NSW is > 11000 MW, VIC > 8500 MW, QLD is > 9500 MW.

      And that’s only the “not enough” generation problem. An equally difficult problem is the “too much” generation scenario. Tricky with all that rooftop PV that can’t be turned off…

      It’s all grim.

      10

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    And yet, the savings to the consumer are there, and not to be sneezed at. The problems with the grid are known and can be overcome, as part of normal upgrades and maintenance. Remember that everyone in the industry is making out like bandits, particularly the distribution companies. There are a number os schemes to help unit and apartment dwellers. Finally depending on which side wins the federal election, low income households will get assistance.

    638

    • #

      Sure Peter. Any problems can be overcome if you can steal enough money. Whats the cost? What are we giving up so we can get green unreliable electrons and feel like we are “obedient” citizens?

      The savings you make are costs to other people, and they pay more than you save. Australia is a “Net loser”. The more solar we get, the poorer the nation becomes, the more jobs we destroy.

      There is no productivity increase, no energy created that couldn’t be made cheaper and more reliably. Low income households only get assistance from forced payments from the middle class and other low income households.

      484

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Well, yes that is a valid viewpoint, and germaine to our current position in relation to all things energy related. As you point out, the market is distorted by subsidies, which transfers the real cost away from those installing these solar systems. But… (and you knew I’d have one). This could be ameliorated by developing a sound energy policy which gives all players certainty, the removal of all subsidies, and the use of the market to send the pricing signals necessary for competition. Otherwise, if they are handing out money, I’ll get in line quick smart.

        As to the grid, these are assets which have a very long lifespan, I know of poles around Burke and Broken Hill which are over 100 years old, and show no deterioration. I would suggest that explicit in the contract that you enter with your supplier is a Quality of Service Guarantee, which should impel the distribution companies to make the changes necessary to ensure reliable delivery of power. Mind you this should have all started 10 years ago, but it is not in the commercial interests of these organisations to spend before they absolutely have to, and of course, they are also looking for government handouts.

        327

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Fitz,

          You have a propensity to “blame” commercial operations for the poor policy development of the green/left socialists.

          Yet you admit you’d “get in line quick smart” at the trough.

          Consistency is not your strong point, unfortunately.

          Don’t you see that if there were no subsidies there’d be no solar or wind generated electricity?

          The subsidies are what make it possible for the private sector (mainly sycophantic crony capitalists in this case) to generate a profit from what is essentially an inefficient, unreliable and uncompetitive technology.

          302

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Which subsidies do you think I’m talking about:

            416

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Cyndi, your makeup has run!!

              103

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              Which subsidies.

              The subsidies that enable solar and wind to operate notwithstanding they are commercially non-viable enterprises without subsidies.

              Pray tell us, what technology would you use to produce electricity in sufficient quantities to enable an advanced industrial economy to compete in the international marketplace?

              201

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Oh so subsides for other forms of power are OK?
                As to your question, we are moving to renewables, and that will happen in an inefficient and haphazard way, as we are too stupid to have an energy policy.

                212

              • #
                AndyG55

                “so subsides for other forms of power are OK?”

                There are little to NO SUBSIDIES on coal.

                Any REAL energy policy based on logic and rational science, would be almost EMPTY of wind and solar.

                The ONLY energy policy that makes sense is coal and gas HELE power plants with hydro and nuclear as required.

                There is NO REASON for wind and solar to bet used anywhere but tiny niche out of the way places where delivery of RELIABLE power is not needed, or where it is too expensive to link to the electricity grid.

                There is NO RATIONAL or ECONOMIC reason for using solar or wind as a major supplier to the grid..

                142

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Cyndi,

                you of all people should know that we are not “moving” towards renewables:

                we are “transitioning”.

                XXXX

                42

              • #
                MudCrab

                we are moving to renewables

                There is a joke you have probably heard. A man goes to see his doctor. Doctor! I hurts when I do THIS!
                And the Doctor replies;
                Well stop doing it!

                “we are moving to renewables”

                Well now we have identified the problem, the solution is clearly to stop.

                40

              • #
                MudCrab

                we are moving to renewables

                Also, why do we call them renewables again?

                Oh, that is right, we need to renew them every 10 to 15 years when they start to pack up.

                Also, anyone here like to formally stake their reputation that solar panels will NOT letch toxins into storm water run off during the end of their life cycles?

                50

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Well said Cyndi.

          More ifs, buts, what ifs, maybes and unicorn farts.

          Reality doesn’t get a look in.

          KK

          133

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Nomitive determinism is a bugger for those with names like yours

            317

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Go Cyndi go.

              True Colours now Shining Through.

              103

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                There were three choices and Cyndi picked the only wrong one.

                Nominative is probably what was intended but there’s also normative.

                TCST.

                82

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                Admittedly many of the origin’s of names are professions themselves. Smiths and Bakers are typical examples. That may be indicative of their predisposition for that sort of work (like artistic people like to draw, and musical people like to make music). It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to believe that there are some instances of genetic predisposition for jobs. But to be honest, I suspect the Norminative determinism is more of an “in joke” than a serious line of research.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism

                40

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              I once heard of a person who worked in the wet tropics area of an environment department who changed her family name to Rainforest.

              Does that count? Or did she have it back-to-front like greenies in general, who like you, believe that man-made CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming?

              100

        • #

          Ho Hum!

          Absolute minimum power consumption across he AEMO coverage area at 4AM every morning.

          Yearly AVERAGE – 18000MW

          Solar plant contribution NIL.

          Rooftop Solar contribution NIL.

          Solar power supporters have got nothing.

          They’re not making out like bandits if they can actually DELIVER that amount of power, and it’s required not just at 4AM, but across the whole day. It’s the Base Load. Everything else is just added on top of that, including the 6.5% of (both) versions of solar power, averaging just 1600MW in its totality.

          Tony.

          390

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Historical views are always welcome, but they say little about the future

            336

            • #

              Hmm!

              When I really started looking back in 2008, that minimum Base Load was 18000MW. At that time, I even went backwards and found that even six years before that, it was, umm 18000MW. And that was as far back as I could go at the time.

              It hardly changes year in year out, no matter what is added, and what efficiencies are made.

              That tells me, pretty much conclusively, that no matter how much they try, it’s not going to change.

              It’s not a ….. ‘historical’ view. It’s the ‘actual’ view.

              Every year (and it seems that these days it’s more often than that) someone comes along and says Base Load is an outdated idea.

              It’s not a d@mned idea.

              It’s a fact. An actual physical certainty.

              It’s not an adjective for coal fired power.

              It’s actual power consumption.

              And it’s something that CANNOT ever be supplied by renewables, no matter how many of them they build.

              Without that ABSOLUTE 18000MW, Australia just ….. stops.

              Tony.

              491

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                So, despite more and more renewables coming on stream, your backward look is telling you that nothing has changed?

                536

              • #

                Ah, now I know that you’re just stirring.

                Tony.

                300

              • #

                Oh, and Peter Fitzroy, had you stuck around over the weekend, you would have seen that while wind power has increased its Nameplate over the last year (in just 12 Months mind you) from 4950MW to 6106MW, so around 1100MW extra, or plus 23% of Nameplate, that wind power’s actual percentage of power generated and delivered has gone down from 7.58% to 6.85% of all generated power.

                So, they’ve added more wind power, and delivered less power.

                That doesn’t look very promising, now does it?

                Tony.

                470

              • #

                Ah, wind power. The gift that keeps on taking.

                390

              • #
                markx

                Baseload power is a bloody simple concept. Draw a line across the troughs of daily usage, and contract someone to supply that 24 hours per day, and because it is a consistent supply it will be at a very low price.
                Peak demand can then be met by the highly contrived RET ‘market’.

                Where it has all stuffed up and cost the consumer a fortune (and lined the pockets of power companies) is by allowing bidding on what should have been (almost) permanently contracted out.

                Any perceived ‘success’ in the gains of renewable power uptake has been one of power companies changing their generation mix to rort a rotten artificial market. And the misguided consumer knnejerk response to being robbed: installing subsidised (for now) home rooftop solar.

                This is all economy destroying stuff.

                160

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                TonyfromOz, I did not know that reading your posts was mandatory, but from reading your previous posts I can see that you report on what was, but with no explanation of the why.
                It could have been the wind farmers picnic for all I know /sarc off

                116

              • #
                AndyG55

                It really is all just TOO MUCH for your little mind to take in, isn’t it pfutz.

                You are INCAPABLE of comprehending the FACTS Tony puts forward.

                Your comments show that your mind is locked into a web of wilful, deliberate ignorance.

                111

              • #
                yarpos

                Need to be a little careful when looking at percentages and switching between that and nameplate. Sure they installed more but delivered less in % terms. However if overall power delivered has risen then a reduced % may still be a bigger number than previous years.

                11

              • #

                Thanks yarpos:

                However if overall power delivered has risen then a reduced % may still be a bigger number than previous years.

                That’s the point here.

                In the same data collection period of twelve Months, actual total power generation from every source has fallen, by 800MW on the hourly average in fact, from 24340MW to 23540MW, and that’s a fall of 3.3%. That includes rooftop solar power as well. (I use the hourly average here because that’s a little easier for the average person to understand rather than using actual delivered power. That actual delivered power is that average multiplied by the 24 hours in a day, and then divided by 1000 to convert to GWH, so, back then, it was 584.16GWH average per day, to what it is now, 564.96GWH average per day.)

                So, wind power is generating less from a smaller overall. (1844MW average then, and 1612MW now)

                Incidentally, the total renewables component (hydro, wind, solar plant, and rooftop solar) of the overall was 21.5% at the start of December. It has fallen every week since then, and is now only 19.46%, and that includes the best period for both versions of solar power, the Summer Months.

                That’s despite wind power and both versions of solar power increasing their Nameplate.

                Coal fired power is still above 70% of all power generation, (rooftop solar included) and just for the power plant generation, it’s 74% of all power generation.

                It’s funny what you find when you actually do the data collection. Even I learn new things.

                Tony.

                80

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              You forgot the other one: The Present.

              130

            • #
              theRealUniverse

              So how are you going to FIX the future for your unreliables?, change physical REALITY!!

              10

        • #
          Hivemind

          I like that idea. Develop a sound energy policy. One which doesn’t have gigantic payments from ordinary Australians to subsidy farmers.

          180

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Yep – and then, remove all subsidies, raise the funds on the capital markets and see who wins

            621

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              Without the subsidies there’d be no venture capitalist prepared to risk his capital on wind and solar electricity generation.

              Why? Because they can’t compete in an open market.

              Subsidies are the only reason wind and solar generators exist currently.

              240

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Peter, you miss the point. When there’s a demand for something and it can pay a supplier to provide it and the market is undisturbed by unnecessary nonsense, the the buyer will always find a seller. The relationship of buyer with seller will be stable. Everyone is as happy as it’s possible to be. There will always be those who struggle to buy electricity but that provides them with an incentive to become a better competitor. It should not provide government with an incentive to subsidize anyone.

              When government comes along and says you will kiss my backside so we can reduce carbon emissions, the buyer to seller relationship gets broken very fast. I think you’re seeing that right now in Oz. What makes you think that more of what broke a working market in electricity will help?

              140

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Goodo – remove all subsidies on all generation. Impose costs for the use of the commons, why should my air quality be compromised for your profit. Also before any new coal power stations are built, I want see a fund set up to deal with the waste, like fly ash.

                416

              • #
                AndyG55

                There are basically NO SUBSIDIES on coal fired power.

                Coal fired power DOES NOT compromise your air quality.

                Fly ash is a useful by-product of coal fired power.

                It is used in many areas of construction

                Your ignorance is again showing through as the only thing you have to offer.

                152

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                You’re funny Fitz. Fly ash is used in cement, and many other products.
                https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling/fach03.cfm

                And your air pollution worry is a non-starter.

                70

              • #
                Bill in Oz

                Fly ash actually makes great alternative ingredient in concrete.

                Lighter and stronger !

                Environmentally friendly as well.

                It is not a problem.

                It is not a cost.

                It just takes planning.

                50

              • #
                el gordo

                The is part of the government election platform, but they’ll avoid talking about it.

                ‘All energy sources and technologies should support themselves without taxpayer subsidies. The current subsidy scheme will be phased out from 2020.’

                20

            • #
              Hanrahan

              For a level playfield the taxes on fossil fuels need to be removed. You know ROYALTIES. Unreliables get a free pass, they pay no such taxes.

              80

            • #
              Lance

              Yes, Fitz, let us do remove ALL subsidies of any sort from everyone. AND, let us apply an “Up Front” charge to the Wind and Solar installations for their retirement and recycle. Yes, please, let us do that.

              AND, while we are at it, let us charge the entirety of ALL costs for transmission line extensions that are necessary to connect to those wind and solar sources.

              AND, let us charge off the utility costs of “ancillary costs” related to voltage and frequency stabilization until or unless the solar and wind providers can compensate for the harm that they cause to the grid.

              AND, let us charge to the wind and solar providers the costs related to ramping thermal power plants as necessary to absorb the solar and wind generated power when it is NOT needed.

              AND, let us charge to the wind and solar providers for the costs of lost overhead expenses that are NOT paid for use of the mains transmission, distribution, and maintenance for connected providers who are not already reimbursing such charges.

              AND, let the solar and wind providers bid absolute, firm delivery, of promised power in day ahead contracts or make up their inability to provide at market cost without penalty to either the rate payers, tax payers, or utility providers, without limit.

              Yes. Let us have a level playing field. One in which no preference is shown towards any provider of power.

              Bet you can’t do that, eh?

              120

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Lance, that is exactly what I’m proposing. Good to have you on my side

                21

              • #
                AndyG55

                Great to see you advocating the complete removal of wind and solar as suppliers to the grid, pfutz.

                That is what Lance’s points would lead to.

                Maybe you are capable of seeing glimpses of REALITY.

                (until you stuff it all up with your next post)

                30

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Peter Fitzroy,

          You make it all sound so easy. If only people would all do it right all the time…

          Now tell me, when have you ever seen anyone getting it all right all the time?

          30

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good

            11

            • #
              AndyG55

              pfutz strives for mediocrity. !!

              And still can’t get anywhere near.

              [You may think a word like pfutz will get by the mods. Not true. The mods are watching and Jo does not like name calling.] AZ

              10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good

              So then, you’re willing to hang your hat and your hope on a change to renewables that has already been riddled through and through with corruption ??? And it has been, otherwise Joanne Nova would have been out of business years ago. I guess that pricing the Australians right out of electricity who keep the wheels of society turning is OK with you.

              You may not remember the Climate Research Unit (CRU) — among others — but I do.

              Better to be able to say, “Never let the corrupt be the enemy of the honest.”

              10

    • #
      Travis T. Jones

      Can solar panels ‘tackle’ climate change global warming?

      Fact check … January 22, 2015:

      The Queensland Leader of the Opposition Annastacia Palaszczuk has spoken of her desire to triple the number of Queenslanders with solar …

      - 0.17: “I can’t control the weather.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezbhVrb7zMs

      If solar panels can’t control the weather, do skeptics get a refund?

      191

    • #

      Assistance?

      There is but one form of assistance needed: it’s called Australian coal. The bulk of it assists people in Asia (highest earning export commodity for 2018, accounting for $66 billion in export revenue) so they can make stuff and do stuff. We want Australian coal to assist Australians in making stuff and doing stuff.

      Coal will even be useful in dismantling piles of impious, insulting renewables as those woeful antique contraptions fade, crumble and fall apart. Handy stuff, coal.

      How’s that for a valid viewpoint, Germaine? Germane enough to our current position in relation to all things energy related? Can I offer any more assistance?

      222

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Oh – that old line, if we don’t do it someone else will. Lovely to see the old discredited tropes again, like a zombie apocalypse and carrying about as much truth. Coal is now a stranded asset, even this blog admits that unless a good socialist government like the LNP builds a coal fired plant, it won’t happen. You are happy to cry but but but renewables are inefficient, and they are subsidised, and then in the next breath demand a mandated building of coal fired plants. Tell me how that is not a subsidy?

        627

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Cyndi, this is getting bizarre but an award is well deserved for being able to write so much while saying so little.

          XXX

          184

        • #

          Well, you see, the other Peter Fitzroy said he favoured the adoption of new HELE coal, even without the albatros of CC, and that he’d vote for it.

          I wouldn’t call that Peter Fitzroy a zom just because someone grabs his identity and uses it to preach against coal. Moreover, I can see Peter Fitzroy Mark 1′s point. No matter who builds a spanking new coal plant, Lib or Lab, socialist or Genghis…it’ll be the pants of the ants. It will rock and it will roll.

          An expenditure is only a subsidy if you tip it into antiquated, under-performing, non-returning white elephants. Australia still runs on coal, though we treat it like a beaten-down serf who lives out the back and does all the heavy work while we invite feeble fashionista technology into the drawing room for sherry and witty repartee.

          Pete Mark 1 would understand. Put centuries supply of the best Permian Black together with the latest HELE tech, and you are cookin’.

          By the way, for a “stranded asset” our coal took an awful lot of boat trips to Asia in 2018.

          181

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Tell me how that is not a subsidy?’

          The federal government will underwrite new Hele, but they won’t spend a penny because it’ll be Chinese built and operated.

          61

          • #

            It’s a GeeUp stunt. (Yeah, yet another one of those.) The stunt is to come at an imagined “right-wing” opponent by appealing to his hard head and imagined lack of heart.

            Any expenditure at all can be construed as a subsidy. So if I say subsidy, GeeUp says subsidy. And round and round it goes.

            A technology either eats and works or it eats and bludges. Wind, solar and Big Battery are old and slack and feeble and perpetually hungry. They just eat and bludge.

            And they eat…and they eat…

            102

          • #
            AndyG55

            And anything will be recouped in the long run.

            With a new HELE that would be a long run indeed.

            Solid RELIABLE infrastructure that is used 24/7 for its purpose.

            GIVING , not TAKING as wind and solar must do .

            113

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Then that is the exact definition of a subsidy.
            I do support HELE plants, but the funding for such should be raised in the capital markets, but that will not happen. The reason that the original plants were built and subsidised by various governments is that ROI for these is low, but has a long tail. Most private capital is invested in the exact opposite, and so the government had to step in.

            310

            • #
              AndyG55

              “but that will not happen. “

              More BS from pfutz.

              It would if all the solar and wind subsidies were scrapped, along with mandated feed-ins, the RET and all the other anti-CO2 garbage.

              It is these and political anti-CO2 nonsense that has held back the updating of current coal fired power to the most modern standards.

              Certainly in the current anti-progress regime with all the carbon nonsense hung like a sword of Damocles over their heads, there is not will to even keep current coal-fired power station maintenance up to scratch, let alone build new infrastructure, so only a government can do it.

              62

            • #

              “I do support HELE plants, but the funding for such should be raised in the capital markets, but that will not happen.”

              It’s a bit like a prop jumping on a fouled player’s head and then saying: “Goodness gracious, I hope he’s all right to play on.”

              After Whitlam the Posh Left and GeeUppers discovered capitalism and the market and promptly saw them as yet more levers, buttons and knobs for tampering. Remember Julia and “Big Business is on board!”

              Should’ve left ‘em down on the collective.

              71

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                what? Are you saying that my money should go to building a HELE? how socialist of you

                47

              • #

                Yep. Your money should go to building a HELE like it goes on all kinds of infrastructure and amenities. It should not go to building rubbish infrastructure, of course, however much attracted you are to wasteful globalist gunk.

                Am I a socialist? Could be. I believe in all kinds of social programs and benefits and public initiatives. I just have good taste in which ones and how. That’s the conservative in me. I don’t have a “wing”, just my conservatism.

                The Posh Left and GeeUppers think money should go round a long circuit till it doesn’t look “public” any more and can get skimmed as it goes. They call it “the market” for some reason…or for no reason, actually.

                60

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Are you saying that my money should go to building a HELE”

                Do you want continued RELIABILITY of electricity supply, pfutz?

                Or are you content to live with future blackouts on a regular basis, because that is what will happen if new dispatchable power is not built very soon.

                61

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘…should be raised in the capital markets, but that will not happen.’

              If NSW wanted a new Hele, then obviously the Federal government would become involved as the underwriter. Angus Taylor could put it to tender and a shady shelf company out of Hong Kong would most likely be the winner.

              10

        • #
          yarpos

          talks about old tropes and trots out the stranded asset line, classic :-)

          I refer you to the % share price movements over the last 5 years for Infigen and Whitehaven. I think it clears up which may have the stranded assets.

          30

        • #

          Coal is now a stranded asset, even this blog admits that unless a good socialist government like the LNP builds a coal fired plant,

          This blog says nothing of the sort. The free market is still building coal power plants anywhere there is a free market. Renewables are still uncompetitive without subsidies — a dead end of politico-fashion-tech.

          In Australia the government has screwed the market so badly that if the LNP govt bought Liddell it would just be a bandaid socialist event trying to undo the damage created by Big Socialists who destroyed our cheap grid.

          111

          • #

            There might actually be an advantage in buying Liddell, even if it is an old clunker fast approaching its use by date.

            It could be used as a brown field site to construct a new USC Coal Fired Plant. (HELE)

            They could just update the proposal for the Upgrade of the nearby Bayswater plant. (link here, dated 2009) Virtually on the same site as Bayswater, and they both use the same coal from the same mine.

            Run Liddell until the new one is ready, and then swap over from the old to the new.

            Win Win.

            Except, no Government of any persuasion has the ‘c0j0nes’.

            Tony.

            90

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            So at the moment we need to have the government pay for a HELE plant? I do not want my tax dollars doing that. If a HELE plant is what is needed, then let the capital markets raise the finance. Or is it that the ROI is so abysmal that it has to be government funded (and/or underwritten). Without a clear policy we are stuffed.

            13

            • #

              Irony Alert:

              Or is it that the ROI is so abysmal that it has to be government funded (and/or underwritten).

              Which is of course, not the case for coal, but totally the case for wind and solar.

              Careful PF — people will think I’m paying you to say things that support us.

              PS: The only policy we need is “A Free Market”. Get the government out of generation. Let it manage the natural monopoly — the wires and distribution — make that state owned, and make the Minister personally responsible, not some Qango “Statutory” fakely independent thing.

              40

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Yep, except I would make it a ‘libertarian’ free market, so all costs and externalities are priced. I have no particular barrow to push on a technology front. To the distribution question, I agree, QOS can (as historically documented) be cheaper under State management.

                12

              • #

                Uh-oh. Here come those tired old externalities again.

                Still, now that the Posh Left has gone beyond “market” and is full-Monty libertarian I guess we can expect to hear quite a lot about externalities. They have the advantage of being very elastic. (I dare say there are no internalities, like when something actually works properly.)

                I could never get past the first page of an Ayn Rand novel…but I would not take a free wave generator (plus complimentary steak knives) from anyone who uses the word “externalities”. Put it down to my fear of elastic.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                “and externalities are priced.”

                Great to see you suggesting that farmers and people eating food should pay compensation to the coal fired power stations for the atmospheric CO2 they release and that is THE plant food for all plants on Earth.

                That is one HUGE externality that the coal fired power stations have given for free for MANY years.

                Coal fired power GIVES to all life on Earth

                wind and solar.. not at all, they are TAKERS…

                no wonder far-leftists always promote wind and solar.. take, take, take.

                10

            • #
              AndyG55

              “I do not want my tax dollars doing that.”

              1. I doubt you pay much tax.. a recipient, far more likely.

              2. A new HELE power station or 3 are needed. Business will not fund them while the RET, feed-in mandates and idiotic subsidies exist for wind and solar, distorting the market.

              Would you even consider putting money into something which one side of politics wants to destroy completely ??

              10

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Coal is now a stranded asset”

          ROFLMAO !! WRONG (or deliberately LYING) as always .pfutz.

          Which of course explains why resource exports hit a new record last year,

          and coal exports CONTINUE to climb.

          Also explains the 1000+ new COAL FIRED power stations being built around the world, with a 40%+ increase in human released atmospheric plant food.

          Poor pfutz.. REALITY is not part of your brain-hosed miasma, is it !

          71

    • #
      yarpos

      “The problems with the grid are known and can be overcome, as part of normal upgrades and maintenance.” Just like that, Peter gestures hypnotically and the problems just go away. Simples.

      10

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        the physical grid is always in a state of flux. Adding extra measures to the programmed maintenance activities would be enough to help the transition. Its not like it has to be done yesterday.

        14

        • #
          AndyG55

          WRONG yet again, little puddle-pfutz.

          The whole network needs upgrading if unreliables are to be more than a small part of the supply.

          The cost is JUST NOT WORTH IT, and there is absolutely NO REASON for adopting wind and solar as anything more than a minor niche part of the grid.

          They are NOT SUITABLE for reliable supply purposes.. period !!!

          Get out of your fantasy la-la-land, pfutz, you are becoming nothing but a slap-stick comedy routine.

          20

  • #
    pat

    ABC, 2GB keep doing stories about voters should be careful not to believe “fake news” on social media which could be intended to influence our election. meanwhile, they allow Labor to have as one of their main slogans – invest more in renewables for cheaper electricity.

    no downside here:

    15 Apr: EnergyMatters: 2020 vision: Rooftop solar panels to exceed output of Liddell power station says Green Energy Markets
    Rooftop solar panel systems could generate more energy than the retiring Liddell coal-fired power station by the end of 2020, according to Green Energy Markets (GEM)…

    The 2018 inaugural GenCost report says renewable energy will generate the cheapest form of Australian power over the coming decades…
    https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/rooftop-solar-panel-systems-exceed-liddell/

    read it and completely missed any “cautionary tale”:

    15 Apr: PV Mag: High energy prices set to grow Australia’s rooftop PV installations by 2 GW in 2019
    First-quarter data from Green Energy Markets shows double the uptake of small-scale rooftop solar on the same period last year as record numbers of residential and business consumers seek to reduce their electricity bills. The tendency for installations to increase toward year end suggests that more than 2 GW of solar will hit the rooftop tiles this year. How could this become a cautionary tale?
    by Natalie Filatoff
    “The Victorian Government rebate has really turbocharged sales in Victoria,” said Green Energy Markets’ Tristan Edis, speaking at the Smart Energy Conference this month. “It’s also spectacular in that we’re seeing ongoing robust sales in other states as well, with perhaps the exception of Western Australia.”…
    https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2019/04/15/high-energy-prices-set-to-grow-australias-rooftop-pv-installations-by-2-gw-in-2019/

    80

    • #
      Serp

      Nice catch again Pat.

      Sloganeering such as “invest more in renewables for cheaper electricity” is a very good option when convincing the populace to believe in a falsehood.

      Since these are tools favoured by totalitarian societies I’m supposing we’re coasting towards an ugly future (if we haven’t actually already arrived).

      160

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    The negative side effects of rapidly increasing solar power is exactly the reason the politicians are supporting the activity. The politicians want to destroy the grid, the economy, and the effectiveness of technological civilization. All for the expressed purpose of having unlimited coercive power over the impoverished population. They also do it BECAUSE they too will experience the downside and may themselves be impoverished and extinguished. They hate the responsibility for being human so much, they welcome their desired goal of the destruction of the mind of man.

    Insanity? you doubt? Look again.

    Vote in better people? You can’t do that until the general population holds better ideas as true. Meaning actually true rather than pretend true. Once that is achieved, you will have better people to choose from but not one instant sooner.

    Until then, the best you can do is to stop feeding them.

    121

    • #

      Nah Lionel, politicians don’t want to destroy the grid, they just want to get elected and they are too spineless to risk being called petty names to actually stand up to the vested interests.

      Though no doubt, there is guilt and delusion to add to the moral bankruptcy.

      346

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        We disagree.

        Some, perhaps, are spineless sea slugs (with apologies to all the real sea slugs out there)who violate what little moral code they have. Most virtue signal because they have no moral values to offer. At their core, they know it and seek power and money as an anesthetic to mask their inner emptiness and lack of self identity. This applies to both the followers and leaders of the debacle. They do not and never have meant well. Otherwise they could not be so consistently wrong about everything they do and promote. It is a life long life style choice.

        132

      • #
        yarpos

        Bit Bill is coming to save us! He is “investing” in renewables to drive down energy costs!! yay crisis averted!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf7jO8lAtyE

        30

  • #
    pat

    4 years, 300 pages – Giles believes it all:

    15 Apr: RenewEconomy: Solar dominated renewable energy world possible by 2050, and cheaper
    by Giles Parkinson
    A global energy system – including heat and transport – that is 90 per cent renewables and dominated by solar, is not only possible by 2050 – it will also be cheaper.
    A 4-year study from Finnish-based LUT University and the German-based Energy Watch Group (LINK) looked at how to meet the 1.5°C target of the Paris climate treaty, and found that the most effective, quickest and cheapest means was to switch just about everything to electricity, and power it with solar and other renewable energy technologies.
    “A global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport, and desalination before 2050 is feasible,” the study concludes. In fact, the authors say, it could be done quicker than that…

    The major finding of the LUT report is that the shift to electrify just about everything – heat, manufacturing, transport and desalination – combined with a growing population and economic growth means that total global electricity generation will be four to five times higher 2050 than it was in 2015, or 150,000 terawatt hours…

    Consumption of fossil and nuclear energy resources in all sectors will cease completely.By 2050, the 300-page study says, wind and solar power are produced virtually exclusively from decentralised local and regional generation…
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-dominated-renewable-energy-world-possible-by-2050-and-cheaper-92830/

    22

    • #
      ivan

      I think the guy needs to talk to some real engineers about that before he is shown to be a complete fool.

      80

    • #
      Ben

      Another ‘nice’ touch from the Giles – for stories where a commenter provides an argument that he cannot argue against, he removes the entire comment history from the story.

      80

  • #
    Robber

    Currently, according to AEMO data as tracked by Anero.id and Tony, large solar generation peaks at about 1.5 GW and rooftop solar about 4.5 GW around midday, to contribute to market demand of about 24 GW. But of course when the sun doesn’t shine, to meet the evening peak other reliable generators must be ready to deliver.
    Now consider, if solar doubles in the next couple of years to deliver 12 GW at midday, and wind increases output from its current average 1.7 GW to say 4 GW, that leaves only 8 GW for other generators. Yet sufficient capacity must be retained to still meet the evening peak demand above 30 GW.

    221

    • #
      Yonniestone

      This is what the general public just don’t get, listening to overnight ABC radio the announcers, guests and call in’s all believe that dirty evil coal powered generation cannot ramp up and down fast enough compared to hydro and that spinning reserve is a terrible waste of resources and unnecessary pollution.

      What they fail to acknowledge is how steady coal power delivery is, how much cheaper it is, and CO2 is not a pollutant!!

      242

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Renewables are just add-ons for decoration. Useless for a grid until they have some means of storage of excess generation and cover times when supply is low.
      That means installation of vastly excess capacity and excessive storage, which will shove up prices.
      We have Flapping Mouths, like Giles and Peter, assuring us that renewables are really cheap when their introduction forced up electricity prices and gave us more blackouts. “All will be well” they cry when we add enough renewables so the price will go down – and little pigs will fly.
      And the cost of storage? Apparently free from the Fairy Godmother, or the Easter Bunny.

      90

  • #
    Jack Miller

    Is there anyone that could explain the “subsidies” that coal plants are supposedly getting in huge quantities?

    This gets thrown back at me constantly when I bring up the renewable subsidies and would like to be able to make an appropriate
    or educated response.

    Any help would be greatly appreciated . . .

    Many thanks in advance

    Jack M

    121

    • #
      Serp

      It’s the responsibility of the person making the assertion to produce the supporting evidence, not Jack Miller.

      Since there isn’t any you’re more than likely conversing with a boofhead; find something else to talk about with it.

      120

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      It’s mythical subsidies. They claim that the conventional producers get to use existing installations for distribution.
      Coal fired (and gas) pay royalties on their fuel. And those existing installations were put in by State Governments when they owned the power stations, and they got the costs from those electricity producers.

      90

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Jack,

      As I understand it, the main argument is around diesel fuel excise rebate. The mining industry is exempt. Treasury says the Fuel Rebate is not a subsidy. Of course, all the green/left socialists know better than Treasury when it comes to sucking on the teat.

      As the Productivity Commission noted in 2012 ‘The fuel tax credit scheme is designed to relieve industries of the excise that they pay on the petrol and diesel they use. As Treasury notes “… fuel tax credits are not a subsidy for fuel use, but a mechanism to reduce or remove the incidence of excise or duty levied on the fuel used by businesses off-road or in heavy on-road vehicles”‘.

      https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2012/May/Fuel_tax_credits_are_they_a_subsidy_to_fuel_use

      The current rate is 41.6 cents per litre.

      https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Excise-and-excise-equivalent-goods/Fuel-excise/Excise-rates-for-fuel/

      60

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Oops.

        I referenced the Productivity Commission with the work of the Parliamentary Library.

        Nevertheless, this is the killer paragraph for those green/left economic illiterates:

        Taxes on intermediate goods—that is, goods used to produce other goods—can reduce output and living standards. Public finance theory indicates that taxes should not be imposed on intermediate goods because taxes on intermediate goods distort the allocation of factors of production—land, labour and capital— between intermediate goods and final goods. Reducing taxes on intermediate goods reduces this distortion and so increases total output.

        Consistency counts. That’s also why the GST is only levied on final goods and services. The GST on intervening inputs count as an input credit at the final stage.

        80

      • #
        John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

        Thank you, Sam, for clearing that one up.

        00

    • #
      Yonniestone

      A link to WUWT
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/08/study-removing-oil-and-gas-subsidies-might-increase-coal-use/

      From comments,

      These filthy lairs need to be called out every time they call a tax deduction a subsidy. A subsidy is when a company receives more in handouts than they pay in taxes. ‘Sustainable’ energy subsidies generally are NOT offset in the least by taxes they pay, since they generally run at a loss.
      Allowing people or companies to keep money they earned is NOT a subsidy!

      132

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Geeze, that is a very unique definition there Yonniestone. Have you a reference?

        318

        • #
          Hanrahan

          Fitz, what there needs a reference? It is simple fact. Being able to offset expenses against income is the basis of our tax system. It can’t work otherwise.

          151

        • #
          Annie

          How can unique be other than unique? It can’t be very, slightly or moderately unique. A one-off is a one-off, not a very one-off.

          101

        • #
          Hanrahan

          AND a quick scan of Yonnie’s link indicated that the “oil and gas subsidies” were US centric. Here they pay royalties, end of story. But the US, today, is the world’s largest petroleum producer. From an economic POV it must be working..

          We all know that the US is the world’s greatest debtor nation. But who is going to call in the liquidators? They look like the best house in a run down neighbourhood.

          60

    • #
      neil

      Total energy subsidies in Australia add up to $75,000,000 pa. which is paid by the federal government.

      ALL of it, 100%, goes to climate mitigation projects, about $13.5 million to renewables. The loop hole the science deniers use is that $61.5 million goes to carbon capture (clean coal) projects, which are part of the coal industry. So the science deniers claim that coal subsidies are 4 times more than renewable subsidies.

      The truth is that coal power pays state governments a rent tax on the coal they burn, the Victorian socialist government increased this tax by 300% with the intent of driving coal power out of business by bleeding it dry. Hazelwood has already gone and now Victoria is subject to brown outs on heavy usage days.

      There are NONE, ZERO, subsidies paid to coal power producers.

      190

    • #
      • #
        Hanrahan

        Oh dear. The fuel tax rebate rears it’s ugly head again.

        THE FUEL TAX IS A TAX ON MOTORISTS TO HELP OFFSET CAPITAL COSTS OF ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE.

        Miners, like farmers, fishermen and isolated communities needing diesel generators don’t pay “road tax” on their fuel, nor should they.

        The rebate isn’t a gift. The miners pay the tax on delivery, only getting the rebate if/when they can prove the diesel was used within the lease. No way can any fuel used in a state registered vehicle be rebated. The commonwealth gets a free loan on the tax while the fuel is in storage and the time paperwork takes to be processed.

        My son installed expensive hardware/software in mines which helped with proving use.

        171

      • #
        Hanrahan

        Subsidies via statutory effective life caps
        Australia also pays out large subsidies through statutory effective life caps, which allow for accelerated depreciation and a shorter write-off period for many vehicles. These tax deductions cost almost $2 billion worth of taxpayers’ money each year.

        Solar/wind farms have access to the same benefit.

        CHEAT!!!!

        101

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Fitz,

        Take a look at the first line in the table in your marketforce campaign reference. (Do you not know the marketforce is running a disingenuous campaign and has little regard for facts?)

        You need to repeat a class or, alternatively work harder on your comprehension.

        Go back and read 7.3.1 above.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2019/04/solar-power-hits-the-death-spiral-vertical-rise-in-australia/#comment-2128898

        Now, answer the following questions:

        1. Why is a tax rebate not a subsidy?

        2. What do taxes on intermediate goods or services do to the allocation of the factors of production?

        3. What effect does a distortion in the allocation of the factors of production have on total output?

        91

      • #
        AndyG55

        WRONG as always , pfutz.

        The Fuel Tax Rebate is a return of a tax that is not liable to be paid in the first place., ie the road tax for non-road vehicles.

        It is like any other business or personal expenditure used in generating an income. Tax deductable.

        NOT A SUBSIDY !

        And the accelerated depreciation.. do you really think mining equipment doesn’t have a tough life and depreciates quickly?? wow.. your grip on reality is very low, almost non-existent.

        NOT A SUBSIDY !

        I suspect you know that, and are, yet again, deliberately putting forward misinformation.

        Marketforces.org is NOTHING but a far-left propaganda group, with the usual twisted AGW anti-CO2 agenda.

        83

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          If you get free money, you are subsidized

          210

          • #
          • #
            Reed Coray

            Peter, is it also a subsidy if you get to keep the money you earned?

            91

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Are you saying that contributions to shared infrastructure like schools, hospitals, roads and so on should be voluntary? Or should you pay per use for everything?

              29

              • #
                AndyG55

                You should pay the amount of tax as legislated by the tax laws.

                This is what the coal mining companies do and why they are DUE a tax rebate.

                There is basically NO SUBSIDY towards coal mining in Australia.

                41

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                How about you answer Reed’s question…

                This is the scenario: Everyone pays taxes, some of those taxes are not owed and are returned.
                You are claiming that the moneys returned is a subsidy.

                50

              • #
                Mark D.

                Right Greg C. wanna bet that PF won’t ever answer the question?

                30

              • #
                Reed Coray

                Peter, I read over what I wrote and I’ll be damned if I “said” anything. I asked you a question. When a question on this blog is directed towards a blog reader (the questionee), there are several acceptable courses of action. The questionee can ignore the question. The questionee can answer the question without elaborating–which in this case means a simple “yes” or “no” response. The questionee can answer the question and then elaborate on his/her answer. Finally, the questionee can (a) answer the question, (b) elaborate on his/her answer, and (c) ask follow-up questions of his/her own. What is not acceptable, boorish even, is to avoid answering the original question, and in lieu thereof respond with a pair of your own questions.

                50

              • #
                philthegeek

                You should pay the amount of tax as legislated by the tax laws.

                Absolutley Angry my pet.

                And from time to time you change the tax laws to make them appropriate to the times and economic situation which is why we have a parliament.

                23

              • #
                AndyG55

                oh look, a baby troll making yapping noise. !!

                How cute.

                Tax laws are as they are now.

                Tax rebates are NOT a subsidy.

                32

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Reed, what do you mean then? Your statement “is it also a subsidy if you get to keep the money you earned” implies that somehow you do not not get to keep the money you earned. Are we talking 100%, or 1% As it stands your statement is nonsense

              01

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor pfutz. It is very obvious what Reed was saying.

                You seem to be projecting your incompetence in comprehension onto others.

                There are NO SUBSIDIES paid to coal mining in Australia.

                Your Marketforce link PROVES that.

                10

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Are we talking 100%, or 1%”

                Whatever is appropriate under the tax laws.

                What is it that you are too incompetent to comprehend ????

                Everyone should pay their contribution towards general expenditure as guided by those laws.

                That is what coal mining does.

                They DO NOT receive any extra subsidies, unlike the huge amount of real subsidies paid to unreliable wind and solar for doing nothing.

                00

          • #
            AndyG55

            They are NOT getting free money, they are getting tax back that they paid but did not apply to their situation.

            NOT A SUBSIDY

            Why is your level of comprehension of basically EVERYTHING so incredibly woeful, pfutz.

            82

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              No AG it is a subsidy which is managed in a particular way. It is still free money, if you qualify.

              By the way I was in the Hunter, and got a copy of the local ‘What’s On’ could not find any gigs for AndyG55, have you shelved your rap career? Pity, I was hoping to run into you.

              49

              • #
                AndyG55

                NO it is NOT a subsidy, it is TAX REBATE on tax that DID NOT APPLY to their situation.

                It is NOT free money, it is a return of money that was taken by the government as a tax but DID NOT APPLY to their situation.

                You are either an incompetent fool incapable of basic comprehension,

                … or a deliberate LIAR, pfutz.

                71

              • #
                AndyG55

                And there is that feeble, mindless, childlike TROLLING of yours, yet again.

                GET A LIFE, pfutz. !

                62

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I was in the Hunter,”

                Let me guess, you drove your V8 up to SteamFest as an attention-seeking exercise.

                42

              • #
                AndyG55

                See all that luvly COAL-FIRED POWER. !!

                42

          • #
            Hanrahan

            So when you withdraw money out of the bank, this is “free money” and should be taxed.

            41

      • #

        Peter, thanks that’s brilliant! What a great link. It’s the most comprehensive proof I’ve seen yet that there are no fossil fuel subsidies in Australia. If there were, they would have found them.

        The diesel rebate applies to all remote businesses doesn’t it? So solar and wind farms in the right places would qualify too?

        So the government lets the fossil fuel companies keep slightly more of their legally earned money that you PF reckons it should, and you think that’s a subsidy?

        81

      • #
        toorightmate

        I have often wondered if any imbeciles actually read the rubbish that comes out of the likes of IMF and Market Forces.
        Now we have found one such imbecile – in the true and accurate sense of the word.

        10

  • #
    pat

    14 Apr: LA Times: After second recall, Toyota Prius electrical system is still overheating
    By Ralph Vartabedian
    Felo had taken the Prius to a Toyota dealer a few weeks earlier for a 2018 safety recall. New software was installed to fix an overheating problem in the electrical power system. Yet when Felo hit the accelerator pedal, a key electronic component called an inverter overheated and fried itself.
    “I was lucky nobody was behind me because I would have been rear-ended,” recalled Felo, a salesman at an REI retail store. The car was towed to the dealer, which gave Felo the bad news: It would cost $3,000 to replace the shoe-box sized unit.

    Felo’s experience and others like it are raising questions about the adequacy of Toyota’s attempts over the last five years to stop overheating in the Prius electrical system, and why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hasn’t taken stronger regulatory action…

    The inverter uses high-power transistors to boost the 200 volts from the Prius battery to about 500 volts, and converts electricity from direct current to alternating current. The process is reversed when the brakes are applied and the battery is charged…READ ALL
    https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-fi-prius-overheat-inverter-defect-20190414-story.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fbusiness+%28L.A.+Times+-+Business%29

    40

  • #
    pat

    15 Apr: RenewEconomy: It’s time for a smarter RET that recognises flexible generation
    by Keith Lovegrove
    (Keith Lovegrove is the Managing Director of ITP Thermal (www.itpthermal.com), one of the companies in the ITP Energised Group)
    The opposition is advocating a 50% renewable electricity target by 2030 – as are several states – and the current federal government continues to suggest negative consequences from too much renewable generation.

    It seems Labor will go the election with the actual detail of how 50% might be achieved saved for later. ***That is probably good as what we don’t need is rushed detail that fails to carefully anticipate future perverse outcomes…

    Fundamentally, what we need is a policy that can take us all the way to 100% zero emissions electricity generation and do it with the orderly transition that the Finkel review so obviously pointed out is desirable…

    Some significant fraction of generating capacity in the system needs to be dispatchable in nature. To date, the added VRE in the system has been balanced largely by existing dispatchable fossil fuel generation (ie coal and gas).
    However around 15GWe of coal plants are expected to retire by 2040…

    The dispatchable renewable options of; PV or wind driven batteries, pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) or hydrogen; concentrating solar thermal with thermal storage; bioenergy and geothermal all have a role to play. There is no single winner, and at each timescale there are multiple options that fall within a general least-cost band…READ ON
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/its-time-for-a-smarter-ret-that-recognises-flexible-generation-70773/

    20

  • #
    pat

    15 Apr: AFR: Ben Potter: Wind farm nobbled by clean energy boom
    The Australian Energy Market Operator is curtailing generation from the 200-megawatt Silverton Wind Farm near Broken Hill, which is owned by QIC and the Future Fund and supplies AGL Energy, to between a quarter and three-eighths of capacity as part of its effort to protect the grid, which is struggling to accommodate a runaway boom in wind and solar energy.

    AEMO is also requiring more new wind and solar projects to install costly equipment to protect the grid’s “system strength” while longer-term solutions – such as new high-voltage interstate inter-connectors which can cost more than $1 billion – are run through a rigorous regulatory investment approvals process.

    In the case of Silverton, AGL says the wind farm is constrained to just 45MW during the day, when solar farms are generating, and 76MW at night. The energy retailer is counting on the wind farm to help replace its ageing Liddell coal-fired power station, which is due to close in 2022…

    Other projects have had to install synchronous condensers at a cost of $10 million to $20 million, including solar farms near Broken Hill in western NSW. Last year French developer TotalEren was one of the first to be hit, and had to install one at its 200MW Kiamal Solar farm in north-west Victoria to get a grid connection. ElectraNet, the South Australian transmission company, spent $80 million on three synchronous condensers last year…

    Tristan Edis, a director of Green Energy Markets, said the clean energy boom had created lots of capacity and jobs but it wasn’t guaranteed to continue in the face of the constraints and costs emerging in the grid in the absence of sensible policy reforms…READ ON
    https://www.afr.com/news/policy/climate/wind-farm-nobbled-by-clean-energy-boom-20190415-p51e73

    40

  • #
    cedarhill

    The plan seems to be working. Per a tweet by George Monbiot, “We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it”.
    Solely solar power seems to do the trick.

    70

  • #
    pat

    ***the surely we won’t have to spend anything? not exactly:

    14 Apr: Forbes: Renewable Energy Could ***Save $160 Trillion In Climate Change Costs by 2050
    by James Ellsmoor
    (James Ellsmoor is a Forbes 30 Under 30 entrepreneur, dedicated to his passion for sustainable development and renewable energy. James is Co-Founder and Director of Solar Head of State, an international nonprofit working with governments in the Caribbean and Pacific islands to raise awareness of renewable energy through high-profile solar installations and associated publicity campaigns. A digital nomad, James has worked and traveled in over 50 countries and consults for leaders in NGOs, the private sector and government on topics related to sustainable development and entrepreneurship. His work extends into climate change policy, renewable energy and travel and he has particular expertise in small island developing states SIDS)

    New findings published by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) have emphasized the need to scale up efforts to transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy…
    The Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050 outlines how the world can successfully implement large-scale renewable programs that will not only help reduce carbon emissions but improve global socioeconomic development. The analysis provided by IRENA shows that global energy demands are expected to double by 2050, and that 86% of global electrical needs could be met by renewable energy within that same timeframe. A large scale up from current levels, the extra energy load would be carried mostly by wind and solar installations…

    Despite the optimistic outlook, ***IRENA warns that more needs to be done in order to reach the goal they anticipated…READ ON
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/04/14/renewable-energy-could-save-160-trillion-in-climate-change-costs-by-2050/

    30

  • #
    Robd

    How many thousand wind turbines will it take to power a 50% electric vehicle fleet?
    Oh yes, and when the good ship Australia is becalmed, everybody can just stay home for a spell.

    70

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Trouble is Rob..they wont ever power 50% or even 20% or less, its all insanity, propaganda from the extreme left by the likes of Shorten and his eco nutty mates.

      80

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Here’s what bothers me:
    I’ll be checking out in about 10 to 12 years, all things go according to plan. Ha!

    I’m not sure this energy stuff will shake out before I check out. If things don’t move along rapidly, this is like going to a fireworks display and leaving before the la grande finale. Darn!

    130

    • #
      Hanrahan

      Ditto. And I really want to know how it ends.

      The consolation is that I should see how the Trump presidency ends and if anyone goes to jail.

      40

  • #
    Lance

    Let us look at “Govt provided tax subsidies” for various forms of generation. I’m using US data since it is more readily available. That said, the scale of comparison would be only more dramatic where renewable subsidies are larger.

    In 2007, USA, “For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour. The bottom line: traditional fuels continue to be more efficient and cost-effective than renewable fuels, which is why EIA forecasts show them representing 91 percent of energy consumption in 2030.”

    https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/energy-subsidies-study/

    In 2010, “Per the EIA, on a per MWh basis we subsidize natural gas and coal by about $0.64 per MWh, and we subsidize nuclear by about $3.14 per MWh. In comparison, we subsidize wind by about $56.29 per MWh, and solar by an astronomical $775.64 per MWH”.

    https://jerrygraf.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/energy-subsidies-in-the-usa/

    In 2016, the Direct Federal tax subsidy per MWh produced was USD 35.33 for Wind and USD 231.21 for Solar in 2013 USD.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/12/the-truth-about-energy-subsidies-solar-gets-436-times-more-than-coal/

    On a “dollar for dollar subsidy basis” In 2016, Fossil fuels provided 78% of generated power, Nuclear 10%, with renewables of all forms comprising 12%. Wind and Solar comprised 90% of all federal subsidies while providing 3% of generated power. On a basis of USD Subsidy per MWh generated, Solar received USD 43.75 and Wind received USD 5.75.

    https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/eia-report-renewable-energy-still-dominates-energy-subsidies/

    In 2017, “On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined. However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#511aefeb128c

    The point of all of this is to demonstrate that the cost of Solar and Wind is far beyond its value in the marketplace as compared to other generation technologies and fuels. Expanding the base of such expensive and unreliable power on the backs of taxpayers and rate payers is a functional recipe for National Economic Suicide. I, for one, hope that AU comes to its senses before the economic, social, and national, train wreck becomes unavoidable.

    90

  • #
    raygun

    Good read. Explains a lot that I had questions about. Regards, US of A retired engineer.

    40

  • #
    Bill in Oz

    Most of us now without solar panels on the roof are lower income folk. We are renters. We are pensioners and people working in lower income jobs. We are the folk who were not clever enough ( or maybe too honest ) to get into the solar roof top scam that a lot of our fellow Australians have done.

    What to do about it ?

    I am coming to the conclusion that the only way to stop the solar rooftop madness is for all the rest of us, ( the 70-80% ) who subsidise these installations, to refuse point blank to pay the subsidy.

    How ? We we already know the extent of the subsidy per customer per annum. It’s roughly $200 and rising. So with each quarterly account we deduct $50.00. with a note to the retailer stating we refuse to subsidise solar power and telling them to get it from the bloody government.

    If just a couple of us did this we would be singled out an could even have power cut off. But if a huge number of people did it.. ( Most of the non solar panels folks )
    then their god damned subsidy rort is shown up for what it really is… A scam !

    Stuff them !

    And stuff their bloody governments..

    This could be our way of starting a Yellow Vest movement !

    110

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Bill, the additional charges are approximately $1,000 per household annually.

      50

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      the cost seem appalling even wit the subsidy. I got a 250W (second hand) panel for $100. So that is 10 panel for a grand. So one could put up your own for not much without subsidy. Some invertors are less than a grand too.

      10

    • #
      Hanrahan

      we already know the extent of the subsidy per customer per annum. It’s roughly $200 and rising. So with each quarterly account we deduct $50.00. with a note to the retailer stating we refuse to subsidise solar power and telling them to get it from the bloody government.

      Campbell Newman, when Qld Premier, planned to take the solar subsidies out of the electricity bill and pay them out of state coffers. Good idea! That might constrain state govs. enthusiasm for ever more solar. In our wisdom we voted him out.

      40

  • #
    Another Ian

    If I was a versifier

    There would be a song highlighting acts of political troughery with a chorus that went along the lines of

    “Done again! Done again! Done Again!

    By another bloody politician, Done again!”

    30

  • #
    RickWill

    There is still time before the broader population understand the uneconomic nature of intermittents. Right now the small scale solar are winning the race because they have the highest priority access to the market. Their only control is system over voltage. Distributors are working to get the power back up the grid to avoid this condition. Retailers get lower cost power from rooftops than the wholesale market so they support rooftops.

    If you have a roof then put solar panels on it and enjoy the government largesse while it lasts. If Labor get in it will be a decade or more before it unravels.

    As the grid power costs climb, it is getting very close to off-grid solar plus battery being the economic choice in Australia. With panels bought and paid for, largely by those who do not have panels, that becomes a sunk cost when considering the investment in batteries.

    The grid was dead economically once the first intermittents were permitted priority access.

    50

    • #
      Lance

      Rick: I agree with your assessment. That said, those who need an affordable fuel driven alternative when the sun isn’t shining might look at the “slow speed diesel” “Lister Type” cold start diesel engines. They are very stingy with fuel and have been known to last for 50 years.

      Some decent info resources: http://listerengine.com/smf/index.php? and https://ozlisteroids.com/about.html

      I’m not promoting anything except the idea of fuel efficient local generation for individual use. Much better than the high speed gasoline engine driven alternators in terms of fuel efficiency and engine life expectancy. Sometimes the old tech is pretty good stuff.

      Cheers.

      40

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Diesel comes from oil..all good :)

        40

      • #
        Another Ian

        Lance

        Or more

        We have a Southern Cross YC that has been in front line service on a bore since 1940. 7 hp at a dizzy 900 rpm, though throttled back for the pumphead.

        I have had the injector and fuel pump serviced. Apart from that as far as known locally it has not had a spanner on it – or at least the bloke most likely to have done so hasn’t and doesn’t know of anyone else that did.

        Still starts on first compression after the Southern Cross glug of oil and uses about 2 gallons of diesel in a 10 hour run.

        Due to that glug of oil I guess particulates on start-up would cause a modern EPA-ite to have a heart attack

        30

  • #
  • #
    theRealUniverse

    It looks to me like most people (allot I talk to) put up solar to ‘save’ money on their power bills. Not to supply the grid.
    Someone I know did that early on and now cant increase his inverter to above 2kW or he looses the 45c subsidy he gets.

    40

    • #
      Sambar

      Yes, I am sure this is the case. I have considered installing solar panels just so I can rid myself of the “daily supply charge”. No matter how little electricity I consume I get charged $1.30 / day delivery. In summer when we use the barbie and hot showers are not required ( we still shower just with cool water ) we can get our electricity useage down to about $1.10 /day. In total not much you say, but as finances are reasonabley tight anything saved can be re- invested back into wine, women ( the wife ) and the occasional song.

      40

    • #
      yarpos

      They are playing with words really, the FIT is part of reducing bills and its supplying the grid, even if to no good effect. I have friend who is in exactly the position you describe, however his system was an oversized FIT harvester. He got greedy and wanted to put in more but it was going to affect his lucrative status quo which still has years to run.

      10

    • #
      Chad

      Someone I know did that early on and now cant increase his inverter to above 2kW or he looses the 45c subsidy he gets.

      Well, if he only has a 2 kW inverter, and a normal house hold usage, ..he wont be returning much to the grid anyway.!

      00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    My commiserations to the French and people of Paris for the terrible fire in Notre Dame cathedral.
    Hope some ratbag doesnt blame ‘climate change’.

    100

    • #
      Annie

      It’ll be either that or the ‘wrath of God’…some people will use any event to push a barrow :(

      It was upsetting to read about the fire this morning. If it is in any way as beautiful as Chartres or Rheims it is a severe loss.

      40

      • #
        yarpos

        Cathedrals all around Europe will be getting ready for an uptick in visitors. Notre Dame had 13 million + a year visiting. All the people trying to get their cathedral and castle fix in Europe will need to look elsewhere. The cathedral in St Denis is very intersting and historic if not grand, but sadly that area has become a bit of a no go zone for many visiting the new Europe.

        40

    • #
      Dennis

      Check out the person on the scaffolding and the flames to the right and rear of the building …

      https://twitter.com/TipsyPianoBar/status/1117938596952993793

      10

      • #
        Annie

        Hmmm…very interesting and reflects an early question that came to mind when I read about the fire, in view of the season.

        20

        • #
          Dennis

          Annie I read that another ten Catholic Cathedrals have been vandalised in very recent times in France.

          And in the days before Easter looks suspicious to me.

          10

  • #
    Paul Miskelly

    I think that the analysis at the following site is very relevant to this excellent post of Jo’s:
    http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia

    There are a couple of items in this article that are highlights for me.

    1. In his forwarding of the link, its author, Willem Post, adds an additional following conclusion, also based on his analysis there: “Large-scale solar cannot exist on the grid without expensive large-scale batteries.”
    For me, the deep spikes in the chart at the link make that point very clearly: if batteries are the only source of the necessary fast-acting response, then batteries are required. This being the case, then the only appropriate policy is that the operator of any such solar installation be required to provide a suitable battery at its own expense on the installation’s side of the connection point to the grid.

    2. As a very interesting aside, I also found the third dot point under the heading “Notes” in the article to be extremely interesting: “Tesla had to airship the entire Tesla supply from the US to Australia to comply with tight schedules.”

    One has to ask: was the additional CO2 emissions requirement resulting from such a means of transport over conventional sea-freight subtracted from any claimed CO2 emissions reductions resulting from the operation of the Hornsdale renewable generation facility?
    I suspect not.

    Similarly, I would like to see an analysis by competent persons that addresses both the land use and environmental impacts of large-scale solar PV and wind energy projects. This analysis would also address the obtaining of accurate estimates of the CO2 emissions resulting from ALL aspects of the provision of these generators. Such an analysis would address the CO2 emissions resulting from the following:
    1. The extraction, refining and manufacture of the enormous quantity of material that comprises these installations,
    2. The land-clearing and road-building civil works requirement for each such project,
    3. The transport of what is, relative to other forms of generation, the large quantity of these components from the point of manufacture to their installation on the site.
    4. This analysis would similarly address in addition such impacts resulting from any necessary battery backup requirements.

    I think that such an analysis might result in some unpleasant surprises for renewables advocates.

    Given that, in Australia at least, with its ban on nuclear power, all wind and solar PV installations at present require ongoing, hot-ready, backup from conventional, dispatchable fossil-fired generation, I suggest that it is of great importance that accurate estimates of the CO2 offsets, if indeed there are any, provided by these, so-called “renewable”, generation sources, be meticulously and rigorously determined.

    Well done Jo – yet again you have produced an excellent analysis showing the utter stupidity and futility of policies that support the pursuit of renewables.

    70

    • #
      Maptram

      Such a study would not take into account the loss of the CO2 removal by any plant life removed for each project, for the life of the project

      20

    • #
      yarpos

      I often what is renewable about the 40 tonnes of concrete and reo in the base of each turbine.

      People often then say what about a coal plant! thing is they arent making the holier than thou claims.

      20

      • #
        Dennis

        How about 42 MW capacity factor from 67 Wind Turbines at Capital Hill Wind Farm and 2,000 MW from coal fired Liddell Power Station?

        So 2000 MW divided by 42 MW = 48 x 67 = 3,216 Wind Turbines.

        30

        • #
          Dennis

          For the 67 Wind Turbines there is 15,000 acres or 6,000 hectares required, of suitable land where sufficient wind is available to achieve 30 per cent capacity factor.

          20

  • #
    pat

    more madness from theirABC:

    15 Apr: ABC Big Ideas: What price nature?
    Can we better conserve our ecosystems and biodiversity by placing an economic value on them? Some scientists, environmentalists and economists believe we need to view the natural environment as ‘natural capital’. Paul Barclay speaks to a panel of experts.
    Presented by the Griffith Review. Recorded on 21 March, 2019.
    Moderator, Paul Barclay ABC
    Speakers
    Charles Massy – farmer and author
    Jane Gleeson White – author, “Six Capitals, Or Can Accountants Save The Planet”
    Hugh Possingham – Chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy; Professor, University of Queensland.
    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/the-economics-of-conservation/10976892

    10

    • #
      Slithers

      From this link they are listening to Pseudo science.

      http://research.iaun.ac.ir/pd/jjfesharakiold/pdfs/PaperC_4124.pdf
      PVs offer several advantages such as: high reliability, low maintenance cost, no environmental
      pollution, and absence of noise (Patel et al., 2008).

      Except when they are hail damaged.
      High costs of Inverters.
      High cost of Storage batteries if power needed 24/7.
      High costs water and labor too clean them.
      Pollution only when end of life, see hail damage.
      Poor performance when temperature soar to 40+ degrees.

      Well the paper does go into the effect of temperature upon PV performance.

      00

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    1 GigaWatt of Australian wind project owners worried as Senvion faces insolvency | RenewEconomy …

    Australian wind project owners worried as Senvion faces insolvency 12 april 2019

    https://reneweconomy.com.au/australian-wind-project-owners-worried-as-senvion-faces-insolvency-85419/

    There goes the warranty and the performance guarantees!

    Carpetbaggers.

    30

    • #
      pat

      Travis T. Jones -

      what is extraordinary is we are in the middle of an election campaign – heavily focused on so-called RE and this story has been reported on by NONE OF THE MSM! unbelievable:

      the two minor mentions, same story, which do not even come up in a simple search – you have to know exactly what you are looking for:

      Workers Sent Home as Contractor Files for Insolvency
      5CS – 15 Apr 2019
      Workers at the $480 million Lincoln Gap wind farm near Port Augusta have been sent home after International contractor Senvion filed for self-administration proceedings…

      Workers Sent Home as Contractor Files for Insolvency
      Magic 105.9 – 15 Apr 2019

      40

      • #
        Bill in Oz

        Ahhh well I guess that will change a few minds in the seat of Grey in SA.

        Unreliable expensive energy was supposed to be the future for Port Augusta, after the brown coal fired plant closed.

        But in 2 weeks both projects are cactus !

        Meanwhile in the Adelaide Hills, Pumped Hydro is the go with an agreement between AGL and Hilllgrove mining.

        https://indaily.com.au/news/business/2019/04/16/pumped-hydro-future-for-kanmantoos-big-pit/

        Yes, here in SA we are short of cheap reliable power,. So we have to buy it in from Victoria’s brown coal plants 1100 ks away.

        But, hey ho ! Let’s waste some more pumping water to a hole in the ground at Kanmantoo !

        What could go wrong ?

        Ohhhhh Bugger bugger bugger !

        30

        • #
          David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

          Thanks Bill,
          I wonder what government subsidies are harvestable from this one? For how long would the full dam produce at its 250 MW max? And is wind-sourced power adequate for the refill?
          Cheers,
          Dave B

          00

          • #
            Bill in Oz

            One key question is where is the water comes from. The big mine hole at Kanmantoo is about 30 ks from the Murray river or about 60 ks from Lake Alexandrina – as the crow flies.

            Mt Barker District council does have sewerage treatment plant which provides recycled water.But a lot of it is already sold for irrigation in the district.

            Another issue is exactly how much power does it take to pump the water back uphill to the mine site. That probably depends on the height which the water is pumped..But a couple of hundred meters would be needed to get any power out of the hydro water scheme when it was flowing down hill. powering the turbines.

            And I wonder is there any major power line supplying the amount of current needed ? I suspect Not as it’s out in the boondocks !

            00

            • #
              Bill in Oz

              Also there are no wind turbine schemes close by to it.

              So the windy & solar green power will have to be generated elsewhere.

              00

            • #
              yarpos

              I think the questions and issues are mainly rhetorical.

              Give it a few years and there will be some management claim of a “perfect storm of events” that mean the project will not go ahead. It will follow the well worn path of wave energy, tide energy, hot rocks, solar thermal and bankrupt fans. Some cream will have been skimmed for initial studies, consultancies and maybe even some fences and basic earthworks. Rinse and repeat, you can make a living out of it.

              10

    • #
      Dennis

      Wreckeconomy.

      20

  • #
    pat

    lengthy, detailed, may be of interest to some:

    15 Apr: Utility Drive: Renewable procurement gaps pose risk for California’s climate goals, but what solution is best?
    A new bill may capture broad agreement about the need for a central backstop procurement entity — but doubts about it remain.
    by Herman K. Trabish
    The state’s massive renewable resource portfolio has gaps in it that threaten the reliable delivery of electricity, according to a March 18 proposed decision in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) integrated resource planning docket. The docket was designed to address reliability in planning by assuring that variable resources are adequately balanced by resources that are available when needed…

    The CPUC must decide whether the LSEs’ combined plans will deliver “a reliable and affordable electric system” while meeting California’s mandated climate goals, Administrative Law Judge Julie Fitch wrote in the March 18 proposed decision (LINK).
    That will require balancing “existing and new resources” with “baseload and intermittent resources” made up of “renewable, storage, and conventional fossil-fueled resources,” Fitch wrote. In the LSEs’ filings, “there is inconsistent, and in some cases, nonexistent, recognition of these realities.”…
    https://www.utilitydive.com/news/renewable-procurement-gaps-pose-risk-for-californias-climate-goals-but-wh/552184/

    10

  • #
    tom0mason

    Of course the other problem with solar panels in hot places, is the efficiency drop-off as the temperature rises.

    This little paper spells it out. http://research.iaun.ac.ir/pd/jjfesharakiold/pdfs/PaperC_4124.pdf

    So you put in more solar panels, litter all the rooftops with them, and then on hot summers days their output never reaches the expected output. Maybe we need to install air-conditioning with them :-)

    40

    • #
      yarpos

      With all the variables involved in solar panel installation and operation, I expect few if any ever deliver the rated number people focus on when they are buying.

      10

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    When solar power was introduced in the UK, questions were asked as to what would happen when most houses had solar panels and the remaining few houses were providing all the subsidy. No answers were forthcoming from the useless politicians.

    60

  • #
  • #
    crosspatch

    Off topic but I thought I might share. Dr. Peter Ridd has won his case vs. James Cook University!

    90

  • #
    Bill in Oz

    Judge Vasta of the Federal Court has issued his judgement.
    James Cook University in Townsville is stuffed. It’s action were unlawful.

    Bugger I wonder what they’ll do now..

    Mind you nothing reported by the ABC online..

    The judgemnt probably does not run according to the ABC’s politically correct ideology !

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/15/victory-climate-skeptic-scientist-peter-ridd-wins-big/

    40

  • #
    John Falting

    in many parts of SA 253v is resting night voltage, try 264v has been seen, above 253v new inverters are trimmed or output reduced, at 258v they shut down, its a major issue, utility companies make more money at higher voltages, forces you to use more power than required, most appliances only require 220v and longer wire runs especially n the country, need higher voltage at the start to achieve an acceptable voltage at the end, its a major problem.

    00

  • #
    John Falting

    Jo Diesel rebates don’t have a regional basis, it applies to stationary diesel motors and mining and farming and irrigation, diesel that doesn’t use the road network ie tractors, bulldozers etc so generators don’t get subsidies, the 38-40c rebate is for the non-road use diesel consumed as the current price of diesel has this 38-40c built in.

    00

Leave a Reply to neil Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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