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

18 years of Renewable Energy Target means an expensive and unstable grid, and still 75% coal

Wind turbines, Albany, Jo NovaA big new study by electricity grid nerds (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) shows that after all the money and pain of 20 years of forced transition Australia’s electricity has shifted from 85% coal powered to 75% coal powered, which cost billions and as a bonus, made electricity more expensive and unstable. We drove out some brown coal, but swapped it for black coal. Instead of ousting coal power, the extra solar and wind power replaced some gas and hydro.

The authors are genuine independent experts, and the report is incredibly detailed — so this is rare — but still suffers from serious drawbacks:

  1. The team doesn’t question the need for an artificial expensive transition. Almost all the problems they describe are caused by government policies that task our grid with changing the climate as well as producing cheap and reliable electricity.
  2. In a grid being ruined by inept policy, the implied solutions almost all involve more regulation and government policy. If our gas prices are too high we could ban sales overseas, but then we lose the export income. The left hand steals from the right. The free market solution is to use another fuel, like coal or nukes, or explore for more gas. When the new report says “Thermal plants are aging and are highly unlikely to be replaced by new coal plants” they don’t add — but only because government policy prevents this.
  3. Changing markets and scheme “Design” won’t save us — it won’t make low density energy more dense, it won’t make intermittent supply more reliable, or batteries cheaper, or open up vast land near the demand for electricity. All these are structural problems — and every solution involves throwing money.

This report is very useful for identifying problems but not so much for figuring out solutions — to be fair, Paul McArdle and team are not selling their report as such. That’s not their job — that’s Angus Taylor’s.

National Electricity Market lacks ‘holistic thinking’ and risks ‘failing to keep the lights on’

 Stephen Letts, ABC

Australia’s National Electricity Market and power generators are struggling to come up with a coherent plan “to keep the lights on” due to policy and pricing limitations, according to a major independent study of the sector.

No. The problems are due to policy ambitions – do we want 50Hz or fluffy clouds? Holistic thinking starts with checking those boring assumptions that underlie the whole gig: “is there a cause and effect link” or is our energy policy driven by twitter hashtags and namecalling moviestars? Can anyone, anywhere on Earth find observations recorded by actual instruments that shows that the humble Australian 50GW grid will stop the seas rising? There probably isn’t a validated model on Earth that shows that, or even an unvalidated one.

What they show is that the whole system is chaotic, contradictory, has perverse incentives and isn’t achieving much. Say hello to Problems With Centralized Planning v101.

ABC’s Key points:

  • New capacity is being driven by construction and deal making rather than what is needed
  • Black coal has been replacing brown coal while solar and wind is pushing out gas and hydro
  • Price mechanisms have encouraged ‘bare minimum’ rather than reliable generators

Jo’s key point:

“Mr McArdle said whichever way you look at it, the grid is moving into a higher risk environment and higher underlying prices.”

After 18 years of Renewable Energy Target we are still running on 75% coal

The study’s starting point is that 75 per cent of the “bulk” electricity grid in 2018 still came from the combustion of coal. “Despite the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target [MRET] commencing 18 years ago, the NEM has moved from approximately 85 per cent [coal] in 2007 to its current level in a much slower manner than many people wish to see,” the report said.

Despite wind and solar dominating the new capacity coming online in the past five years, the aggregate level of coal-fired generation in recent years has remained relatively steady. Black coal has largely replaced closed brown coal plants, while wind and solar have displaced hydro and gas generation.

Bid patterns are more volatile (less like a free market):

Changes in ‘bid patterns’ for power are seeing an increasing volatility and a concentration of either extremely low (below $0/MWh) or high (above $300/MWh) prices.

…average prices across the curve keep creeping up.

 Batteries are not the answer:

Battery storage is one solution, however it is still a tiny fraction of supply. Even existing pumped-hydro from the Snowy scheme accounts for less than 1 per cent of energy consumed in the NEM.

Currently battery storage is better suited to short, sharp bursts of energy or emergency responses, the report found.

The government has created this bubble. The free market can only solve it if the government gets out of the way.

h/t Peter Fitzroy

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (85 votes cast)
18 years of Renewable Energy Target means an expensive and unstable grid, and still 75% coal, 9.7 out of 10 based on 85 ratings

168 comments to 18 years of Renewable Energy Target means an expensive and unstable grid, and still 75% coal

  • #
    RobK

    “…and things are now a lot more expensive and unstable.”
    A lot more of that to come, if we keep our current trajectory.

    310

    • #
      Geoff

      Government has just “followed the money”. They are, pushing a belief in “science” and “regulation” despite being dependent on taxes and getting re-elected.

      None of this helps power up a 500MW base load genny. Inertia synchs the grid, not propellers or silicon sucking photons. The laws of physics govern what is possible. Our grid is ONLY going to get too expensive to support our lifestyle if we continue to listen to children, gaia zeolots and reward spivs.

      We are now at the point where ALL of the eastern seaboard industry is in mortal peril. If WA thinks this won’t kill them too, I would suggest a plan to secede is now appropriate. Put that on the table and just maybe the rest of the country will finally cancel the Paris Agreement.

      “Dear Australia,

      You have destroyed your economy because certain persons want to big-note themselves at the UN by agreeing to govern the world’s climate. We do not wish to go down with you as we know this is not going to end well. We would be happy to accept any immigrants to our new nation, WAustralia.

      Yours sincerely,

      WAustralia”

      300

      • #
        Allen Ford

        Seriously, how do we get rid of these misanthropes?

        There is enough evidence to point the finger at the UN for perpetrating this travesty on the entire world, e.g.

        At a news conference last week in Brussels

        , Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

        Where is Henry II when you need him, and who famously is alleged to have said:

        “”Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

        Will no one do us a favour and rid the world of the meddling UN?

        120

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Bring on the Climate Nuremberg Trials…..

          Popcorn….git your popcorn here……

          10

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            You’ll need a lot of popcorn.

            At a news conference last week in Brussels

            Nope. Not last week. Not last month. Not last year.

            But, the green left Commo did say it. No doubt about that.

            2015 or thereabouts as I recall.

            She also said something along the lines:

            “…democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.”

            It appears she’s the real McCoy. A green Communist totalitarian.

            90

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Getting a bit late to save WA Geoff. It now seems that our Labor Govt are allowing our main coal stations at Muja to run down, so although there is still plenty of high-quality black coal, it will eventually have to be replaced with higher-cost gas or renewables.

        30

    • #
      glen Michel

      Renewables(Wind and Solar) should be capped right now and the arrears made up with at least one HELE to compensate for decommissioned and ageing plants. Whatever, Angus Taylor has to get out there and prosecute the real story and not prevaricate.

      220

      • #
        FarmerDoug2

        Just remove subsidies and the market will fix it.

        200

        • #
          Geoff

          Just removing subsidies WILL NOT fix it. Trust is lost. The Paris Agreement MUST be cancelled. Departments devoted to carbon taxes etc need reassignment. Persons who cannot accept this, or are financed by this, need to be removed from government funded influence.

          Stop financing University largese.
          Stop CSIRO and the BoM wasting taxpayer funds.
          Cease attending Climate Change anything.

          Trust MUST be restored.

          Our economy and lifestyle is now in mortal peril.
          It may already be too late to save it.

          321

          • #
            el gordo

            Its okay, Morrison is in charge, we are saved.

            The masses have been severely brainwashed, but I’m confident an invigorated MSM will snap them out of their malaise. Then you can have your audit of BoM etc.

            50

          • #
            Bill in Oz

            Geoff I red thumbed you.

            Why ?

            Because your demands ignore the lessons of ‘one step at a time’.

            10

            • #
              Geoff

              https://climateaction100.wordpress.com/

              Look it up. The Paris Agreement is getting institutionalized. Get enough bankers and finance houses in on this scam and governments cannot afford to turn it off. Lancing the “boil” is no longer an option. Amputation is now required. It will hurt. Don’t do it and death is the only outcome.

              30

        • #

          Just remove subsidies and the market will fix it.

          True up to a point. But as long as Labor thinks there are votes to be won and the meme of man-made warming stands, investors will be justifiably nervous.

          We have to remove the religion too.

          170

          • #
            Bill in Oz

            “Removing the religion too”

            Exactly !

            I have suggestions for doing this. 1 :Request all power users to states whether they wish to buy only wind or solar power and supply them with power from those sources are the real market rate for supplying it. 2 : When wind & solar are not available or in short supply, turn off or ration the power to those customers.

            now that would learn them dopey bastards of the impact of their particular religion on theimselves !

            80

            • #
              Bill in Oz

              Alternatively provide all electricity customers with the right
              To OPT OUT of all solar & wind generated power..

              Allow us to say
              “Bugger off expensive & unreliable Solar & wind power ” !

              I suspect that almost all power customers would opt out if given the option.
              only a few dedicated greenist religious nutters would stay with it.
              And that would close down the climate religion industry

              80

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                That would be like throwing water on witchypoo…..

                “Im melting….I’m melting…..”

                00

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                Bill,

                That’s so true. Let’s have a choice.

                Not so long ago, as I recall, the ACT Government provided a choice for the electricity consumers in Canberra, under pressure from the virtuous green left socialists. They could pay a few shekels more for “green electrons” (and save the world) or continue with the standard “knuckle dragger’s” tariff.

                The “green electrons” option was a failure. The hypocritical green left Canberra virtue signalers wouldn’t pay the minuscule extra for green.

                Now, I’m very happy to pay for “non-green, coal-generated, electrons”. 100%.

                Trust the ABC? Not me.

                60

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        “Long Way to Run: Warren Buffet Rejects All-Renewable Future With $10 Billion Bet on Oil & Gas”
        https://stopthesethings.com/2019/05/31/long-way-to-run-warren-buffet-rejects-all-renewable-future-with-10-billion-bet-on-oil-gas/
        Id bet on oil and gas too. With a planet willing to give us plenty, why bother with un-reliables / intermittents.

        Nuclear
        “Nutting-out Nuclear: Why Cost & Reliability Mean Wind & Solar are No Match for Nuclear Power”
        https://stopthesethings.com/2019/05/29/nutting-out-nuclear-why-cost-reliability-mean-wind-solar-are-no-match-for-nuclear-power/

        80

      • #
        Terry

        Wind and Solar should be banned from the grid completely until they can take care of their dispatchability problem, efficiently. (ie unlikely in our lifetimes).

        You want some panels on your roof? Fine. You want a windmill on your property? No worries.

        You want to connect them to the grid to run interference? Absolutely not.

        Grid-based energy must be cheap, reliable and efficient. Solar and Wind ain’t any of those.

        Leave the virtue-signalling to those that want to do it on their own time with their own money and leave the rest of us alone.

        Besides. Precisely what is so virtuous about driving up the cost of energy for others (often much less wealthy) in order to prop up your own fragile ego.

        These are not virtuous, moral or even good people.

        120

  • #
    Zigmaster

    Whilst this election was claimed as a victory for sceptics on climate change, it really was a contest between a policy of climate change damage and climate change utter destruction. Listening to the government ‘s science minister Karen Andrews gives me no confidence that the Libs are going to improve things too much. Only a yellow shirts type rebellion will stop our government from wasting money and creating a worse system.
    The government thinks it is helping by looking to bring in a big stick to electricity companies when the only big stick needs to be applied to the states. If the current tragectory continues I can see sometime where we will have a electiricity supply emergency and the government will have to use the essential services legislation to wind back the programs implemented by the states.
    The current 26 % middle “ ground of the government is still going to end in tears and unfortunately until the climate change scam is exposed world wide and all people realise they’ve been conned we are stuck with a government whose main claim to power supply sensibility is that the others would be far worse. Until the market is allowed to drive entirely the energy mix we are doomed to increasingly higher prices and a less reliable grid. It just worries me that things are so entrenched that with a whole generation of climate indoctrinated kids reaching voting age that this climate cult cleansing that is needed will become more difficult. I just hope that if globally a few more Trump equivalents come to power world wide that Australians may realise that whilst we are leading the world fighting climate change there is actually no one following . We are patsies being used by other countries and regimes as climate change cannon fodder.

    420

    • #
      el gordo

      Yeah, here is the transcript from that interview, Morrison should have replaced her with somebody who understands the science.

      http://www.karenandrewsmp.com.au/Newsroom/Media/ID/1950/TRANSCRIPT-Interview-Sky-News-with-Kieran-Gilbert

      130

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Born in Brisbane and raised in Townsville, Queensland, Andrews graduated from the Queensland University of Technology in 1983 with a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering before going on to work at various power stations in Queensland, and later chemical and petrochemical sites interstate, where she specialised in design and plant maintenance.

        She’s 58yo so definitely no a Millennial and should know better, its simply another example of people turning their careers towards politics,

        After working as an engineer for a number of years, Andrews completed a Graduate Diploma in Industrial Relations from Victoria University and began a new career as an industrial relations advocate working in the engineering and construction industries. Her expertise in industrial relations resulted in the Victorian government approaching her to head up the Industrial Relations Branch of the Department of Health and Community Services, where she was responsible for negotiating with public sector employees including nurses, ambulance officers, doctors and community service workers.

        Nothing wrong with having the freedom to change career direction but some positions carry more importance than others due to the consequences of your actions, any Australian member of parliament that follows the directives of foreign countries or powers should not be in that position, the Climate beast needs to be taken down NOW!

        151

        • #
          Jonesy

          I was in the same building as Karen…Mech Eng..doing an Assoc.Dip.Mech.Eng in 81 thru 83 and I cannot remember her in our sea of white males. I had one woman on my course and there was a girl doing civil but I cannot remember Karen, she must have did nights. Having said that, and considering the full thrust of practical engineering that was taught at QIT at the time, I find it amazing that Karen would even believe in any of the IPCC BS.

          140

          • #
            Jonesy

            Correction…that was 79 thru 81…Karen would have been first year 80 to finish the four year course by end of 83.

            90

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Thanks for the personal insight, I agree that its amazing anyone that applied themselves to such qualifications would believe the IPCC BS and that just goes to show how powerful the Canberra Bubble has become, and people think peer pressure is strongest amongst adolescents.

            100

          • #
            theRealUniverse

            Now a career politician of course so she tows the line. Also if you a passionate about your career/occupation you usually stick with it.

            50

        • #
          Hasbeen

          May be there is a god after all.

          That big old guy up in the sky, SOL does appear to be on our side. Record cold in north America & Europe/Asia last winter.

          Record number of frosts in south east Queensland last winter. Coldest ever May day this year, the cold is everywhere.

          Just this morning current snow was a major topic on which ever one of those idiot morning shows my lady watches, it is ongoing.

          I can only wonder how much of this will be required to get through to a brain washed general public that global warming is bulldust.

          90

        • #

          There is a copy of that interview on her facebook page. Might be a good idea to comment.

          30

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        ‘ somebody who understands the science.’ be frank allot of engineers (under grads) dont understand science well. Training and applications/methods are often different. Engineers learn the systems, science usually study the how/why of the system, BUT that doesnt stop scientists being alarmists.

        71

        • #
          theRealUniverse

          Addition but of course there are allot of engineers that are skeptics. I think its more on how and what you think.

          60

    • #
      Dennis

      She will rely on the science she said during the Sky interview.

      Would that be like the Abbott Government Cabinet that in the majority (Turnbull’s Black Hand Faction on the left) rejected Prime Minister Abbott’s recommendation that due diligence, an independent audit of the Bureau of Meteorology be conducted after complaints to the Minister regarding BoM media releases not matching BoM historical record data?

      161

    • #
      scaper...

      I came away from watching the interview with another impression. Do you believe that if the science is looked at, the warmists have a case?

      51

      • #
        el gordo

        They don’t have a case, but its up to us to prove it. The war will be fought on many fronts, we could start with JCU, the Minister is out of touch with climate change science.

        ‘So our science agencies such as the Australian Institute of Marine Science are looking at mitigation strategies: so how are they able to lengthen the amount of time between bleaching events which gives the coral the opportunity to regenerate?’

        20

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Yet another “Government Enthusiasm”

    41

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Yet another “Government Enthusiasm”, just “Bigger than Pink Batts”

    60

    • #
      Environment Skeptic

      No Another Ian, not “Bigger than Pink Batts”
      Many here are not up to date on the latest technology :)
      I have been using a hairdryer to keep cosy and warm and do not use aircons, fireplace and so forth. A simple squeeze of the hairdryer trigger injects warmth under a jacket that provides relief from sub zero temperatures for up to an hour.

      Of course i am a qualified hairdresser so i am proficient in the use of hairdryers. Don’t try this at home unless you are qualified like myself, however, training in the use of this overlooked method of staying warm can easily be learnt and then like myself, the electricity used in winter is actually less than that used in the summer when evaporative methods of staying cool like using a water sprayer are best.

      20

      • #
        Environment Skeptic

        The reality is that with the right hairdressing training modules in the use hairdryers, we could probably do away with 95% of the electricity we use for heating, since the hairdryer is far superior in targetted heating. Contemporary civilization is heating and cooling gigatons of non living bricks, concrete, glass and so on. … and so therefore=>…Targeted heating using a hairdryer in winter would do away with that.

        00

        • #
          Environment Skeptic

          These recent conditions could have been ameliorated using less than half a kilowatt-hourwatt-hour a day. With the right hairdressing training module, not even a single kilowatt to keep an entire hard working Australian family toasty and warm on a record cold subzero day.

          From Ice Age Now. https://www.iceagenow.info/several-coldest-may-mornings-on-record-in-australia/
          “Several May temperature records – at least one more than a century old – were broken in southern Queensland overnight.

          Applethorpe, Oakey and Dalby all suffered their coldest May mornings on record.

          The temperature plummeted to -6.1 C in Applethorpe, –2.1 C below its previous record set 13 years ago.

          Oakey dropped to -4.4, 0.3 of a degree cooler than its old record set in 2006.

          Dalby had its coldest morning since 1911, recording -3.6.

          Southern Queensland towns record coldest May morning”

          https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-31/cold-morning-in-southern-queensland/11166790

          00

      • #
        Another Ian

        Just wait till the EU down-sizes the power of your hair drier

        00

        • #
          Environment Skeptic

          Another Ian, the world will embrace hand held heating in a loving environment without fear of political coiffure. :)
          My professional hairdryer has a guaranteed ‘nameplate’, reliable heat generating capacity of 2000 watts.

          00

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    The cost of action:

    The ACT’s move towards 100 per cent renewable electricity added almost $72 to the average power bill last fiscal year, a new government report has shown.

    But the cost is predicted to rise further still.

    “When you look at the potential consequences of [failed doomsday global warming] the reports have long said it makes much more sense to invest money now to avoid some of the worst consequences in the future and that’s certainly what we’ve tried to do in the ACT and I think what the report yesterday shows is we’ve been able to do it in a way that is affordable,” Mr Rattenbury said.

    https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/5998680/the-cost-on-your-power-bill-of-the-acts-switch-to-renewable-energy/

    ExxonMobil backs LNG imports to world’s biggest exporter

    BRISBANE (Reuters) – Imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Australia – the world’s biggest LNG exporter – now appear “highly realistic” as the country struggles to fill a looming gas shortage, U.S. energy giant Exxon Mobil Corp said on Thursday.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-gas-outlook/exxonmobil-backs-lng-imports-to-worlds-biggest-exporter-idUSKCN1T00T2

    >> How much stable climate has “action” bought so far?

    PERISHER IS OPENING EARLY!
    With over 60cm of snow in the last 3 days Perisher will open this Friday 31 May!

    https://www.perisher.com.au/plan-your-trip/activities/early-opening

    Brisbane awakes to coldest May morning in 13 years

    Brisbane awakes to coldest May morning in 13 years, Cold temperatures records for May tumbled, in particular Bundaberg, where it was 5.5 degrees – the coldest May day for more than 50 years.

    https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-awakes-to-coldest-may-morning-in-13-years-20190529-p51se4.html

    Canberra shivers through coldest May day in 19 years

    Australia’s ski resorts have had their first major snowfall for the year, with more to come over the next few days.
    Cold weather blasts NSW, ACT, Vic: Canberra has record cold day | The Courier-Mail

    https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/canberra-shivers-through-coldest-may-day-in-19-years/news-story/afe890d1519513d40fa2d8a1f7def480

    A green fool and their money is easily parted.

    80

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      After 18 years of Renewable Energy Target we are still running on 75% coal

      Still HAVE to run on coal as un-renewables CANT run the grid. PERIOD.
      What part of this basic engineering fact dont they get?

      130

      • #
        yarpos

        Not the ACT though. They sit in the middle of the primarily coal powered NSW grid and are going 100% renewable. Apparently they shuffled some paper, so it really is so.

        20

    • #
      johnonymous

      ACT Government spokespeople conveniently forget that per kilowatt-hour the most expensive part of shifting to 100% renewables is the Small and Medium scale Feed-in Tariff scheme that they boasted was the most generous scheme of its type in Australia. Rephrased, it is least generous to the 90% of households that don’t benefit. This rooftop solar production is a tiny fraction of electricity usage but costs the average household $55 a year.
      Our solar citizen neighbours have now paid off their investment and for the next 10+ years will receive five times the wholesale price of the electricity their rooftop solar produces even when they use it themselves. And the ACT Labor Government and renewables activists still can’t see how stupid they have been

      10

  • #
    ivan

    Simple answer, make the bid for supply be in one month segments and add a fine for non supply. That way the unreliables would have to either buy in power from the reliable producers or build their own reliable power stations.

    As it stands the government does not have the necessary intestinal fortitude to do something like that because they fear the UN Church of Climatology and the Green Blob. Why they can’t stand on their own feet and have pride in the country rather than taking orders from outside the country is beyond me.

    222

  • #
    John Gross

    Does the report account for the amount of coal wasted, just to keep the power stations spinning in reserve? Has anyone calculated the amount of electricity that coal would have produced, if used to actually generate power? I suspect it would add a chunk to the 75% reported here.

    Can anyone tell me if there is any data on the total amount of coal burnt by power stations annually? It would be interesting to calculate how much electricity it could produce in modern super-critical plants. (Producing, of course, the same amount of CO2). I am quite sure it would be much more than 75% of total electricity requirements.

    170

    • #

      There are currently NO coal fired Units in Australia which are used as spinning reserve.

      EVERY Unit, at every plant, which is actually spinning is delivering power to the grid.

      The plants which were used as spinning reserve have all closed down.

      If there are any unscheduled faults at a coal fired Unit, hydro spins up immediately, and while that is happening, natural gas fired Units come on line to take up any loss of power from that coal fired Unit.

      There are currently six of 48 coal fired Units at 15 plant off line, all for maintenance.

      Tony.

      250

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Perspective is important, thanks.

        50

      • #

        As of Midnight 31May2019, (twelve hours ago) there are now eight of those 48 coal fired Units off line.

        The average hourly power delivered by those on line 40 Units across the 24 hour period ending at Midnight, those 40 Units delivered 17500MW, (average across the 24 hours) at a Capacity Factor (CF) of 87.5%.

        If you then add those Units off line to the total, so the full 23000MW for all 48 Units, that CF for the whole day still comes in at 82%

        It ranged from a low of 14700MW at 4 AM, and then rising for the morning peak, then falling back a little, and then rising for the evening peak at 6PM, where it reached a maximum power delivery of 18900MW. (and that’s a CF of 94.5%) So, it went through a range of (low to high) 4200MW as it followed the Load across the day.

        The Load Curve showing this is at the image linked to below, and it is the lower black line. (the upper black line shows coal fired power plus just natural gas fired power)

        That average power delivery, as a percentage of ALL generated power across the whole day, just for coal fired power is approximately 70%. (I haven’t yet finished the whole data for this day)

        Fossil Fuel Load Curves 31st May 2019

        Tony.

        160

      • #

        That is particularly alarming.
        For the last few months TVCC201 has been on full stick, which of course is not spinning reserve but at least it represents some rotational inertia. Hydro shut it down the other day, presumably because of May showers and the cost and availability of fuel.

        50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Around this area

    “Inherent unreliable renewables dictate GND “100% renewable electricity” mandate yields unavoidable GHG emissions”

    “The Green New Deal (GND) and California’s SB 100 are both draconian and completely unrealistic pipe dreams that politically mandate “100% renewable electricity” for the U.S. and California respectively.

    A new 117 page study from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has determined that these politically contrived schemes of “100% renewable energy” are self defeating because of the inherent unreliability of renewables which results in significant GHG emissions occurring from the unavoidable need for backup dispatchable and reliable fossil generation. This backup fossil generation is required to provide grid stability functions including frequency, voltage and synchronization control, daily system load ramping and to prevent power shortages and blackouts.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/31/inherent-unreliable-renewables-dictate-gnd-100-renewable-electricity-mandate-yields-unavoidable-ghg-emissions/

    110

    • #
      Another Ian

      And

      “The decline of Weather Dependent Renewables in Europe: 2008 – 2018″

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/31/the-decline-of-weather-dependent-renewables-in-europe-2008-2018/

      50

      • #
        Another Ian

        And then there is Kalifornia – start at

        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/05/24/w-o-o-d-24-may-2019/#comment-112897

        “Kalifornia has apparently chosen to inconvenience and otherwise hinder its citizens rather than apply rational forest management practices. From the article”

        and follow down the thread

        40

      • #
        Sweet Old Bob

        A. Ian …any clue as to why WUWT comments are so slow to post ?
        Used to take a minute …now may take 45 minutes !
        Kind of ruins the dialog !

        30

        • #
          Phil R

          I’m no expert and don’t pretend to speak for WUWT (though I visit the site religiously). I’ve seen a lot of comments from others regarding the same thing. If I’m not too off-base, apparently the site was hacked a while ago so they had to redo some things, plus I think the switched to WordPress? apparently, some of the commenting issues are outside of WUWT’s control. Ask over there, you’ll probably get a much better explanation.

          30

        • #
          Another Ian

          Bob

          I think that is a “feature” of new stricter posting procedures. Varies with site, seems to be a WordPress “feature”. What I’ve found with WUWT is that your posts will not come straight up but that they’ll show eventually. If you want to keep reading back-arrow one screen will take you to where you posted. Your comment should come up on refresh but I usually log out and come back later.

          Some other sites you may not come up immediately (or get hit with a Captcha) on the first post and then be ok for that session for further comments.

          Some you can get to remember your log-in via cookies. Others obviously require more than I’ve explored as yet.

          I don’t get this with a couple of non-Wordpress sites but I have to be logged in to post with them.

          FWIW

          20

      • #
    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Its not about the fake concept of GHG emissions, red herring, its to eliminate fossil (hydrocarbon) based fuels TOTALLY! (secret agenda) Climate has nothing to do with it, CO2 is the vehicle to use as its transnational.

      50

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    How about a mission statement.

    The Austrailian power grid is committed to being the best electric utility in the world, by delivering superior value to our customers, by operating with excellence, and by supporting a constructive regulatory environment.

    ( This is typical of and was cribbed from one of the US investor owned utilities.)

    The US doesn’t really have a competitive market, in the sense that more than one company competes for one’s business, But we have a large number of companies, and a large number of regulators quite close to consumers. In most places, rates are low and reliability is high; the outliers suffer from the same kind of ‘environmentalism’ often documented here.

    70

  • #

    Perhaps the intent was not to point the finger of blame anywhere, but simply highlight the obvious. As soon as blame is pointed out, people start to get defensive. Let others start the process of why this has happened and what should really be done about it.

    40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    John I believe that spinning reserve has been reduced to a very small amount since the shutting down of coal power stations due to the intermittent nature of wind/solar that we’re led to believe will replace them, the coal stations left are running harder to meet the real world demands of the grid while “renewables” pay lip service to political policies.

    I’ve got two images of Hazelwood’s energy production (that I can’t link to) from January 2017 to January 2018, the first shows the usual dip early morning, peak daytime, dip night time, the second shows an almost straight line of running peak power.

    50

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T Fun and games in Canada

    First there was

    Bill C71 – “Liberal government’s firearms bill clears Senate, despite Tory attempts to gut it”

    Which has now been copyrighted

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/05/31/cold-copyrighted-hands/#comments


    MikeM_inMD
    May 31, 2019 at 1:55 pm

    The Canadian Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling that states private individuals and corporations may own the copyright of any piece of federal (and provincial?) law that they wrote for the appropriate legislative body. That means they can collect payment from anyone who reproduces the covered law, or deny them permission to do so — treating that portion of law as if it were book of poetry. Details can be found at https://www.restorecsa.com/lawsuit.

    Biter bit – we’ll see where this goes!

    70

  • #
    John Gross

    OK, I have tried to answer my own question. Using 2013 -14 coal production figures.
    A conventional power station, 21% efficient, produces about 2.6 MWh per ton of coal.
    A supercritical power station is about 42% efficient, ie 5.2 MWh per ton.
    Australian coal production
    Anthracite. Produced 431Mt, exported 375Mt. Used mainly for electricity:- 56Mt.
    Lignite. 59Mt. One quarter heating value of anthracite, so worth:- 15Mt
    Total anthracite equivalent used for electricity:- 71Mt
    In 2016 Australia used about 261Twh electricity.
    In a conventional power station, 71Mt coal gives 187TWh, about 72% total need.
    In a supercritical power station, 71Mt coal gives 374TWh, about 143% total need!!!
    Conclusion. If Australia is serious about cutting CO2 AND dropping the price of electricity, scrap renewables, build modern power stations and cut coal use by a third.
    Anyone care to comment on my back of the envelope calculations?

    180

    • #
      yarpos

      Not going to re research your calcs , but common sense says that if:

      - You want future generations to enjoy a first world standard of life;
      - Renewables dont work except as a small % of a first world grid;
      - Your coal plants are nearing end of design life;
      - HELE is far more efficient than 50 year old technology;
      - Nobody has the courage to propose nuclear power;
      - You live in one of the driest regions of the world;
      - You have immense known coal reserves, and;
      - CO2 as a single magic driver of the worlds climate is BS.

      Then yes its totally logical and effective to build HELE power stations as replacements. Demand is satisfied, the grid is secured and the handwringers get a CO2 reduction for what its worth.

      You can bet however that said hand wringers wont be happy, and they will let their imagined utopian unachievable “perfect” get in the way of the good. I expect all kinds of idiotic protests , culminating hopefully with another Bob Brown convoy protesting the new HELE plant in QLD leading up to the 2022 election.

      130

      • #
        Lance

        The supercritical HELE thermal plants are “possible”. No argument.

        But. Supercritical plants have unique problems associated with creep fatigue failure in the metals.

        Such plants require very much more maintenance than subcritical plants using similar materials in piping, valves, etc.

        Can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? Not sure.

        There is a balance between metallurgy, temperature, cost, and efficiency. As the thermal efficiency increases by virtue of increased pressures and temperatures, the costs of construction, maintenance, and safety, also increase. One may not disregard this and simply focus on efficiency, absent radical advances in materials science.

        There is a “whole picture” and a “partial picture”. Be careful about that.

        90

        • #

          Quite right. As well as the negative arguments you mention you could add safety. Since the possibility of failure can never be eliminated, considering risk is necessary around the fact that a failure at these elevated temperatures carries huge consequences. Risk is a function of probability, exposure, and consequence.

          40

        • #
          yarpos

          Yep, no such thing as a free lunch. Delete HELE and insert current generation if you prefer. The key point was really that updating existing plants and maybe adding one in QLD would be a win for all parties, even though some would still not be happy. In reality I dont think they can actually be happy.

          00

          • #
            Bobl

            QLD already has a couple of supercritical plants on the whole they can be run with as few as 6 staff. Maintenance shutdown excepted.

            So Supercritical plant is not necessarily more unreliable, it just needs different design and maintenance the cost of which is easily covered by lower fuel and operational expenses.

            00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      John Gross:

      Are you sure about that 21% efficiency figure? It seems very low. I heard that the Northern power station, as was, operated around 30-32% because of the standard of Leigh Creek coal. They used that as closest and to avoid supply problems from the Hunter.
      I agree that brown coal (lignite) plants are lower efficiency as their emissions in Victoria are roughly 1250 – 1390? (Hazelwood) and the latest German station can do 800 kg. per MWh on lignite.
      A ton of carbon would produce 3.66 tons of CO2, so that works out at 263 (NSW black coal @ 960kg emissions) to 380 (Hazelwood). I calculated that the newer supercritical station(s) in Qld. manage 210-220 kg.

      I see, by the way, that a contract to demolish Hazelwood has been let. The Russians have nothing to teach our socialists about scorched earth tactics.

      60

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Why eliminate CO2 anyway? Its irrelevant.

      120

    • #

      At first glance I thought your 21% to be about 10% too low, but when one takes into consideration the jacking up and down in load that goes on with the bird shredders these days, you might be close to the mark for overall thermal efficiency over weeks or months.

      40

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        karabar:

        Read the article. When maximum output is required the coal fired stations are supplemented with gas and hydro. When less is required hydro is the first to be dropped (we have limited capacity after all) then the more expensive gas. Finally the cheapest generation (coal) will be throttled back.
        The effect of wind turbines is the same as in Germany. Closed Cycle Gas Turbine plants are on/off and uneconomic, so much so that 2 new plants were ‘demolished’ and moved to Eastern Europe or Turkey where they want reliable generation. The UK is trying to shut down coal fired stations but cannot get investors for new CCGT plants. Instead they get stopgaps and expensive nuclear (someday not soon).
        I have no interest in which source my electricity comes from, but I want reliability and low price. Renewables are the worst choice.

        30

  • #
    el gordo

    I like Ley, a very bright and accomplished woman.

    ‘Incoming Environment Minister Sussan Ley said she acknowledged Australians held strong views on caring for the environment, both locally and globally.

    “I look forward to listening to the variety of perspectives and ideas that will be put forward, as well as implementing our Government’s strong range of policy initiatives in this portfolio,” she said.’

    ABC

    20

  • #
    yarpos

    When the government starts out with the wrong objective, and plan and its resulting execution is always going to be painful and pointless. If none of the parties involved in the grid (and there are too many) are actually focussed on reliable, affordable energy then the result is what we have today and worse.

    The Labor Party is still telling us that their policies are fantastic , its was just the “messaging” The LNP has the best chance it will probably ever have to be decisive in this area. I hope they dont blow it.

    60

  • #
  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Remove all subsidies, guarantee that supply must be 24/7/365, for the bid amount, and let the market decide. That would force renewables, if they want to survive, into partnerships with more reliable generators, and sort out grid imbalances

    173

    • #
      el gordo

      Hear Hear.

      A market based solution.

      60

    • #

      That would force renewables, if they want to survive, into partnerships with more reliable generators, and sort out grid imbalances

      Seriously???

      I’m certain every renewable know to man would want this.

      I’m also certain that no coal fired power plant opertor would want this.

      No one really knows when the renewable will be at average, let alone above or below.

      Join up a 100MW solar plant, at its average CF of 20%, so, in effect a 20MW plant with say Bayswater at 2640MW. 20MW is nothing considering one Unit is 660MW. Even the largest wind plant Macarthur at 420MW, so 126MW at its CF of 30% is still only a small fraction of ONE Unit.

      Renewables would be rubbing their hands with glee at something like this.

      And I just LOVE the way you used that word ….. FORCE.

      What a joke.

      Tony.

      81

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Exactly – renewables would have trouble competing in such a market. However, this market would also impose costs on coal and gas which are not priced in today’s market. For example, if you want to emit mercury, you will have to pay to do so. Of course, we could pay those costs in other ways, as for example in higher health costs for those living near those plants, either way the cost will have to be met.

        12

      • #

        The government has allowed too much cross generator ownership. Where is the competition? Any pure coal generator would laugh at a renewables-coal pair — but there are almost no pure coal plays. Only a couple of very small ones.

        Instead AGL and others play off their own coal assets to ensure bigger profits from both subsidies and market volatility.

        No wonder AGL don’t want to sell Liddell for a quarter billion dollars.
        It’s worth more shut.

        130

        • #

          As in my example above, pair that solar plant with Bayswater. The solar part of the deal could quite literally even quote its Nameplate of 100MW for 24 hours of every day, and KNOW that no matter what, Bayswater would cover that easily. Bayswater, with all four Units in operation regularly ramps up and down every day by anything up to 700MW for eight hours. It would only need to do that for two hours less each day, and that would cover the solar plant, no matter what it generated. They could turn the d@mned thing off and go home.

          Makes the solar plant look great, and they could quote any price they want, knowing that they get that average half hourly cost anyway.

          Similar would apply for the Wind plant.

          The big kicker here is Nameplate, with Bayswater at 2640MW and the Solar plant at 100MW. 100MW is nothing to Bayswater. Even Macarthur at 420MW Nameplate would be no problem for Bayswater either.

          And while I’m using Bayswater as an example, all the big ones have high Nameplates wrt any of the renewables by comparison.

          Every renewable in creation would want a part of that deal.

          Tony.

          90

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Ah Yes, I had forgotten about that

          23

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Tony,

        A contract to supply needs to be a contract to supply.

        If the renewables have first access when the wind blows or when the Sun shines and no penalty for not supplying should the wind stop, then it is not a contract to supply.

        Renewables need to guarantee supply for the period they’ve contracted. Hence they need to have in place back-up. Either with reliable suppliers or by installing an alternative supply – be that batteries, gas or, alternatively, sub-contracting coal or other reliable suppliers to cover when their contracted renewable power is unable to be supplied. That ensures the real cost of renewables is factored into the market.

        30

  • #
    Dennis

    Don’t worry about your home temperature measurement, it’s really much warmer.

    30

  • #
    Robber

    From Tony’s excellent reporting (and Anero.id) of generation in the AEMO grid, here are the sources of electricity for the week ending May 26:
    Coal 15.7 GW (69%)
    Gas 1.8 GW (8%)
    Small fossil 0.6 GW (3%)
    Hydro 1.8 GW (8%)
    Wind 1.9 GW (8%)
    Large Solar 0.4 GW (2%)
    Roof Solar 0.7 GW (3%)
    Total 22.9 GW (min 17.3 GW, max 26.7 GW)

    On average 80% supplied from fossil fuels.

    But what these averages hide is the variability of wind and solar.
    Wind went from a minimum of 0.2 GW to a maximum of 3.8 GW.
    Solar went from a minimum of 0 GW to a maximum of 4.9 GW.
    Demand was met reliably 24/7 thanks to coal varying from 13-18 GW, gas from 1-5 GW, and hydro 1-4 GW.

    To deliver that peak demand of 26.7 GW (and in summer 34 GW), there can be no reliance on wind or solar. Therefore adequate capacity must be available on demand from coal/gas/hydro. Double the capacity of wind/solar and the situation remains exactly the same – coal/gas/hydro must still be available to meet peak demand.

    Double the investment in wind/solar, and then double the investment again to provide batteries/pumped hydro to turn intermittent generators into dispatchable supply. Snowy2 is planned to deliver 2 GW. That big battery in SA can deliver 0.1 GW for 1 hour.

    Liddell coal station in NSW has a nameplate capacity of 2 GW, but is slowly being down rated as AGL plans its demise.

    100

    • #
      PeterS

      Looking at the average over a period may be of some use but is pointless for peak times as you highlighted. What’s the point of having even say 50% renewables on average supply all the energy we need except at peak times the grid fails and we have total blackouts virtually every day simply because there is not enough sun and/or wind? This is the point a lot of Australians in particular of the left who still don’t understand. Perhaps a real live test is required. How about we shut down a couple of major coal fired power stations for a month and see how long the CAGW crowd keeps yelling we need more renewables and not more coal fired power stations.

      40

    • #
      FarmerDoug2

      “Double the investment in wind/solar, and then double the investment again to …” And you still have only gotten down to 50%.

      30

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks Robber,
      A good summary, and I’ve sent it to my state and local members, something I recommend to all here in Oz. And regardless of the members’ political flavours. Some might take notice, even act.
      My further suggestion is that, in doing that, you remain unfailingly polite and just offer the facts.
      Cheers
      Dave B

      20

  • #
    Another Ian

    Heard on Ray Hadley earlier this week

    Mt Piper coal station (15 % of NSW power) is having trouble with coal supply. Used to be able to draw from 6 mines, now 1. Producing 42% of the power it was this time last year. (From memory so IIRC).

    40

  • #
    PeterS

    The elephant in the room is still being ignored by far too many Australians. While the rest of the world recognises the issues and limitations of renewable energy and still is relying on and/or building more and more coal and nuclear power stations, and where they won’t they rely on adjacent countries who are for much of the energy supply Australia for some reason is happy to accept a much higher reliance on renewables in the name of saving the planet from some mythical crisis that no other country is prepared to do on such a scale. Stupid is as stupid does.

    110

  • #
    Another Ian

    Also round this area

    “Divestment Goes Full-Billy Madison”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/31/divestment-goes-full-full-billy-madison/

    20

  • #
    Lance

    Regardless of how the unreliables are hyped, there is a limit to their practical penetration into any generation scheme. See: Capacity Factor

    Wind has a capacity factor of about 0.3, and solar has a capacity factor of about 0.17. Absent a detailed linear programming model, let’s just say they have an average capacity factor of about 25% if equally distributed in total capacity.

    What that means, in plain terms, is that the grid requires at least 75% thermal generation even if the unreliables actually perform to their historical average capability. On a windless day, or cloudy day, an even greater reserve capacity of thermal generation is necessary.

    This means that one may “never” replace thermal generation with unreliables absent a miracle in energy storage and conversion that has thus far failed to materialize.

    If you’d like to “roll the dice” and see “how lucky you feel”, then perhaps 55% thermal is possible.

    On balance, you’d best enjoy spoiled food, hot/cold homes depending on the season, cold water, dark rooms, sporadic communications and internet, and intermittent employment, if this situation continues.

    SA is kind of like the proverbial “canary in the coal mine”. A test case, if you will. I’d surmise the test case will prove itself shortly.

    Once any grid drops below about 55-70% thermal generation, it resembles a third world country.

    Just a thought.

    90

    • #
      RickWill

      The average load in SA is about 1500MW. The state has 1500MW of rooftop and 2142MW of wind – so installed intermittent capacity is 200% of average demand. It also has a 100MW battery at Hornsdale and a 650MW “battery” called Victoria. It is already exceeding 50% of its power consumption from intermittents. If there is enough intermittent capacity and storage it is possible to get well above 50% of market share from intermittent generation; albeit maybe not economically.

      Any network that already has high installed capacity of hydro can get higher than 25% of from intermittent generators. In networks like Tasmania, the intermittents can also have economic merit by reducing the draw on perched water resources. Norway is another location that gets economic benefit from intermittents although it is a location where perched water is rarely scarce.

      30

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        ?
        What’s this about Rick.

        20

        • #
          RickWill

          I am making the point that it is not difficult to exceed 25% market share from intermittents in a network if there is enough installed capacity and there is already ample installed capacity of fast ramping dispatchable generating plant.

          Any mine in Australia using diesel or heavy fuel oil for its dispatchable generation can get economic benefit from installing solar generation on the basis it has the reserve life to repay the capital. There are applications where intermittent solar and wind can make economic sense.

          21

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            In general I can see possible benefit in an isolated mine but in an urban network the only thing that makes renewables float is the distorted compulsory special privileges accorded them.

            Otherwise?

            40

      • #
        Lance

        Um, yeah. Let us all know where and how you stand after you’ve been blacked out.

        Your theoretical “merit” has yet to deliver in reality.

        40

        • #
          RickWill

          My household has sufficient battery storage and off-grid solar that a local blackout does not bother normal household functions, particularly fridge and freezer. They have been running off-grid for 7 years.

          11

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Rick:
        IF there is enough capacity and storage then theoretically 100% renewables are possible.
        Since the best renewables (in terms of generation) is wind turbines we would need approx. 3.3 times generation for maximum demand. In practice some ‘curtailment” will occur (as in SA where the 30% CF of wind turbines now averages 27%) so, say, 4 times the maximum demand in generation capacity. That means at least 3 times the maximum demand in storage to avoid ‘wasting’ what the wind generates.
        There is also the problem that the wind can be too low for days at a time, so more storage capacity needed. Then there is a little further problem that the wind speeds change with the seasons and with (hush my mouth) changes in the climate.
        This has been almost worked out by gullible enthusiasts who assume everything will work out and “FULL SPEED AHEAD AND DAMN THE EXPENSE”.

        10

        • #
          RickWill

          On mainland Australia, solar is the best option for intermittent plus storage. With an overbuild of 3 to 4 times (say CF in the range 7 to 10%) and two days of storage it can provide high security supply at 100% solar – that is what I am achieving with my offered system. Overbuild and storage would be less if there was some dispatchable capacity included.

          Wind goes missing for up to two weeks at a time in Australia. The storage required to support that makes wind far more expensive than solar. Wind is only useful where there is already tremendous storage, for example existing hydro systems. Wind makes sense to conserve perched water in Tasmania.

          01

  • #

    We are arguing against people who do not disagree with us and who have not the slightest interest in climate, nature or conservation. Big Green is the pointy wedge-end of a hideous political experiment as bad or worse than the “isms” of last century when materialist and rationalist systems succeeded in massacring many more millions than Genghis Khan or Tamerlane. (Do I sound potty? Good.)

    Recognise the evil intent behind the climate beat-up by removing every trace of the climatariat’s work. Even though the cost and difficulty of removing the concrete and wiring of wind turbines will be enormous, it will be worth it.

    Rebuild after the globalist catastrophe as one would after a war. Then get back to actual conservation. The world’s climate won’t always be this clement.

    110

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    The h/t for this important thread is attributed to a contributor to this blog.

    As this is the second acknowledgement of this person in about a month they’re to be thanked for being the stimulus for exposing more important aspects of the bizarre religious frenzy known as Climate Change and the associated movement of public monies in its name.

    KK

    50

  • #
    Serge Wright

    This report fails to observe that wind an solar are massive failures when it comes to grid energy. The very low energy density, high cost and intermittent nature means they drive up prices significantly, make the grid unstable and drive away industry and jobs and yet we need to maintain the old thermal plants to keep the grid running. The only unanswered question is “when will we all realise the bleeding obvious, that RE is NOT a grid solution, but an economic and social death trap? “.

    What is damning in the report is that despite the massive subsidised spend on rooftop solar, large scale solar and endless wind farms, we still consume almost as much thermally generated energy as before, with some coal being mainly replaced by gas. The affect of the $50 Bill spend on RE is invisble on GHG emissions and only noticeable on your bank balance.

    Pepole still advocating this crap are either seriouly deranged or have an agenda to destroy humaity.

    120

    • #
      RickWill

      Unless you are enjoying the Government largesse you are paying for others to enjoy it.

      91

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      A great outline Serge, and in putting the cost of this madness to the public it must made known that over a full year every Australian household is Donating $1,000 unnecessarily to the cause.

      Our electricity bills are insane: when offices are finding electricity bills unmanageable it explains why manufacturing industry can’t survive here.

      Will Scomo finally lead us out of this national disaster.

      Kids want work, not social security handouts.

      KK

      60

      • #
        Serge Wright

        Unfortunately, I can’t see any signs of Scomo pushing back from the RE religion. He seems intent on trying to play a political middle ground that instilled a false ray of hope for conservatives just before the election that he will wind back this mess and at the same time he will deliver something short of what green zealots are demanding. Pandering to the two sides will ultimately end in being hated by all.

        What the LNP need to do is to run an information campaign on explaining why RE is a total flop that will destroy lives, and then move the discussion to a choice between HELE coal or nuclear for future baseload power. Gas should also be a consideration, but state governments have effectively priced it out of our future energy equation.

        40

  • #
    RickWill

    Anyone can get a copy of the report here:
    http://downloads.global-roam.com/WattClarity/GeneratorReportCard-OrderForm-v4.pdf
    If you have the required AUD3300 and willingness to part with that amount for a kind tale of a sad story.

    I can provide the same conclusion at no cost. Electricity prices are going up and the grid is becoming less reliable.

    The one aspect I like about the report is the relatively kind description of unrenewable intermittents – anytime anywhere generators.

    The authors make no attempt to understand the fundamental reality of anywhere anytime generators being their negative return on scale in the NEM. The lowest cost solution for anytime anywhere generation is to eliminate the grid and have generation linked to the load. It is only economic for low energy intensive applications. Energy intensive users need to have fossil fuelled generation; probably in a country where coal is not a 4-letter word.

    Without these fundamental insights the report is not worth the paper it is written on. It remains hopeful for anytime anywhere generation rather than pointing out the stupidity of allowing their connection in the first place without some understanding of the consequences.

    Victorian households without solar have June to decide if they will take up the next round of state subsidies.

    30

  • #
    Zane

    Sounds like it is time to stock up on candles and matches. Because, you see, ” the science is settled.”

    40

  • #
    pat

    can’t see this posted; RenewEconomy doesn’t disclose anything about the writers, so see info below the link:

    31 May: RenewEconomy: A radical idea to get a high-renewable grid: Build way more solar and wind than needed
    by Richard Perez and Karl R. Rabago; Marc Perez, senior researcher at Clean Power Researcher, who wrote his dissertation at Columbia University on this subject, contributed to this article. Morgan Putnam, VP of Solar Analytics at REsurety, also contributed.

    Based on our research, we contend that this firm power transformation is not only possible, it is also affordable – if we stop having old ideas…
    However counterintuitive, a study our colleagues and we conducted shows that these steps are the key to the least expensive path to an electric grid powered largely by solar and wind…

    Source: The Conversation (LINK)
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-radical-idea-to-get-a-high-renewable-grid-build-way-more-solar-and-wind-than-needed-99842/

    from The Conversation:
    Richard Perez, Senior Research Associate in Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, University at Albany, State University of New York
    Karl R. Rabago, Professor of Law; Executive Director, Pace Energy and Climate Center, Pace University

    Disclosure statement
    Richard Perez works at the University at Albany. He has received research funding from the USDOE, Environment Canada, NASA, NYSERDA and Clean Power Research. He is a member of the American and International Solar Energy Societies. Clean Power Research led the USDOE-funded Minnesota Solar Pathways project that demonstrated the firm power generation optimization results presented herein. The project’s Lead Scientist was Marc Perez, and project PI was Morgan Putnam. The authors also acknowledge the USDOE-funded Northeast Solar Energy Market Coalition (NSEMC) project to harmonize solar policies in the northeastern US.

    Karl R. Rábago works for the Pace Energy and Climate Center, a not-for-profit project of Pace University. He is also principle of Rábago Energy LLC, a consulting business. The Pace Energy and Climate Center currently receives and has received a wide variety of private foundation grants, federal funding, state funding. Rábago is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Center for Resource Solutions, ACE-NY, and Solar United Neighbors.

    30

  • #
    TdeF

    As Graham Lloyd writes in the Australian “the spotlight has turned to the credibility of the science that underpins the call to climate action.”

    The Science? I have written of my puzzlement on the inaction of scientists on the core concept which underpins the scare, actual fossil fuel CO2 levels, the only thing which matters.

    It would be wonderful for a reputable organization, say a Physics department somewhere, or even the BOM or the CSIRO or NASA or even JCU to have a web site which precisely tracked fossil fuel CO2. It would show under 2% but be quite interesting to watch. Only fossil fuel CO2 is a measure of the alleged problem and an indicator of the effectiveness or otherwise of ‘Climate Action’, another buzz word. Then at under 2%, what problem?

    Such a site could use C14 measurements from the last hundred years and even thousands of year and track actual fossil fuel CO2, not total CO2. ‘Climate Action’ can change fossil fuel CO2 output. Then perhaps with fossil fuel CO2 showing at under 2%, people would start to understand. Without the fraudulent argument of man made CO2 levels, the whole Climate Conspiracy would fall over.

    Shorten, Obama, Clinton and May and Merkel all treat the voting public as imbeciles, deplorables, delcons, people easily fooled by the press. What people need are the facts in front of them and it would all be over. There is negligible fossil fuel CO2. Then the recriminations would start.

    110

  • #
    pat

    remember who is writing this:

    31 May: InsideClimateNews: Ohio’s Nuclear Bailout Plan Balloons to Embrace Coal (while Killing Renewable Energy Rules)
    It’s a trifecta the Trump administration has pushed for nationally, with businesses and homeowners footing the bill for uneconomical power plants.
    By Dan Gearino
    A bill passed this week by the Ohio House would subsidize nuclear and coal power while cutting state support for renewable energy and energy efficiency, with the utilities’ customers footing the bill…

    The measure (LINK) now heads to the Ohio Senate, and the idea of a nuclear bailout has the support of Republican Gov. Mike DeWine. If it becomes law, it would mean Ohio is decisively turning away from policies that aid the transition to renewable energy, said Kit Kennedy, senior director of the climate and clean energy program for the Natural Resources Defense Council…
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052019/ohio-nuclear-bailout-coal-plants-kills-renewable-energy-efficiency-standards

    another negative piece, but a couple of points to note:

    31 May: Utility Drive: Ohio House approves nuclear, coal subsidies, ditches renewables mandate
    by Iulia Gheorghiu
    By repealing the state’s broad renewable portfolio standard, the bill would eliminate a monthly surcharge of less than $5 from residential customers to help utilities obtain 12.5% of their power from renewable resources by 2027.
    But while the bill eliminates the mandate, it contains other renewable provisions that helped garner support from 10 of 38 Democrats…
    https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ohio-house-approves-nuclear-subsidies-bill-also-covering-2-coal-plants/555825/

    30

    • #
      pat

      behind paywall, but easy to read nonetheless. gas-fired generators the most peeved:

      31 May: NaturalGasIntel: Ohio inchest toward nuclear subsidies as legislation clears house
      by Jamison Cocklin
      Nuclear and existing solar power are the only qualifying “clean air” resources in the current version of the bill, unlike previous proposals that would have compensated new wind and solar projects.
      The bill has drawn criticism from environmental groups and, ***in particular, gas-fired generators*** who argue the subsidies would depress energy prices and put them at a competitive disadvantage…
      https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118529-ohio-inches-toward-nuclear-subsidies-as-legislation-clears-house

      1 Jun: ArsTechnica: Ohio lawmakers pass bill to cut renewable requirement, help nuclear and coal
      by Megan Geuss
      Another, smaller provision in the bill would allow residents of unincorporated areas of Ohio to hold a referendum on whether to allow wind projects to proceed…
      Among the concessions: six large-scale solar projects that already exist in Ohio would be eligible to access some of the nuclear subsidy fund. Limits were also placed on how much FirstEnergy could devalue its nuclear properties (a tactic the company could use to reduce its tax liability).
      Ultimately, those concessions got enough Democrats onboard to pass the bill (especially those with nuclear plants in their district)…

      While lawmakers say the bill will save consumers money, UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) disputes that statement. “While the charges appearing on consumer bills might be less, this ignores the much greater energy bill savings consumers have been realizing through investments in energy efficiency,” UCS writes. “In addition, the cost of wind and solar has fallen by more than 70 percent over the past decade, making them more affordable for consumers and competitive with natural gas power plants in many parts of the country.”
      https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ohio-house-passes-bill-that-would-allow-consumer-funded-nuclear-and-coal-subsidies/

      10

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        pat:
        “the cost of wind and solar has fallen by more than 70 percent over the past decade” What figures are available, IF ANY, are available to prove that this will continue? And that ignores the costs of storage and transmission capacities.

        10

  • #
    Ross

    This is off topic but fits into the big picture. It is a long read but well worth the time. The article is written by a Hungarian historian, Dr Maria Schmitt a couple of years ago. She is also an adviser to Vicktor Orban. It is about George Soros ,how he goes about his “business” and interference in various countries political , cultural and social issues.

    http://abouthungary.hu/blog/the-gravedigger-of-the-left/

    I note the US equivalent of GetUp mentioned in the piece. Can dots be joined ?

    30

  • #

    What people need are the facts in front of them

    Unfortunately, understanding of the facts is also a prerequisite.
    The bulk of the population don’t know, don’t care, and don’t want to know.
    It’s a cult.

    30

    • #
      Hanrahan

      They say “I believe the science” totally unaware that unless you understand the science [at least some science and physics] and research a little, that belief is totally meaningless.

      40

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    do we want 50Hz or fluffy clouds?

    Not everyone could agree, so a compromise of both was made.

    We got fluffy Hertz.

    50

  • #
    Hanrahan

    The government has created this bubble. The free market can only solve it if the government gets out of the way.

    Too late for that. Australia has already shown itself to be an unreliable place to do business. Labor has shown a willingness to tear up contracts and the electorate has shown a willingness to vote in labor governments.

    Any new HELE or nuclear plant will require heavy government commitment, both financial and regulatory otherwise the money will go where it is more appreciated. No Aussie bank would consider being part of the funding consortium, Adani being a good example,

    30

  • #
    pat

    re the writer. you have to get to the bottom of the piece to discover:
    Cam Klose is a co-founder of Indigo Power, former staffer to Cathy McGowan and an Indi resident.

    1 Jun: Guardian: Communities around Australia are taking clean energy into their own hands, the Indi win built on that
    Back to back independents have never been elected in Australia, until now
    by Cam Klose
    Indi is a regional electorate in Victoria. It stretches all the way from the peri urban fringes of Melbourne to the Murray River. It is an electorate of mountains, valleys and plains. Until Cathy McGowan won in 2013, Indi had been a safe Liberal seat, delivering some of the largest margins in the country for conservative members…

    Across Australia there are now more than 100 communities developing community-owned clean energy projects and working to transition their communities to 100% renewables. About 80% of these groups are located across regional Australia…

    At the forefront of this transition in Indi is the town of Yackandandah, which is committed to being powered by 100% renewable energy by 2022. Thanks to the work of community group Totally Renewable Yackandandah (TRY), 55% of all households already have solar on their roofs, way above the Victorian average…
    This year TRY has installed solar panels and a battery on the local CFA shed, ensuring that during bushfires or natural disasters it will still have power…

    To help these communities reach their renewable energy goals and keep money circling locally, a locally owned community energy retailer called Indigo Power has recently been set up…
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/01/communities-around-australia-are-taking-clean-energy-into-their-own-hands-the-indi-win-built-on-that

    10

  • #
    pat

    31 May: PublicFinanceInternational: World Bank moves to speed up renewable energy take up
    by Sam Courtney-Guy
    The World Bank has convened an international partnership aimed at boosting energy storage – vital for renewable power – in developing countries.
    The Energy Storage Partnership will foster international co-operation to bring technology and regulatory solutions to help the rapid uptake of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, in developing countries.
    Announced at Wednesday’s ‘clean energy ministerial forum in Vancouver (LINK), it includes 29 organisations across the world that will work together to ‘decarbonise’ power systems in developing countries…

    Riccardo Puliti, senior director for energy and extractives at the World Bank, said: “The fast growth we’re seeing in the electric vehicle market is exactly what we need for energy storage in power systems around the world.
    “We want to see batteries connected to the grid, serving mini-grids, and enabling much more use of renewable power from the sun and wind.”
    In September the World Bank announced a $1bn scheme to accelerate investments in battery technology in low- and middle-income countries. It aims to raise another $4 billion…

    The organisation expects worldwide demand for battery storage to reach 2,800 gigawatt hours by 2040 – equivalent to storing just over half of all renewable energy currently generated in a day…
    The Australian government has just backed a $3.5bn ‘water battery’project (LINK).
    https://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2019/05/world-bank-moves-speed-renewable-energy-take

    00

  • #
    WXcycles

    The government has created this bubble. The free market can only solve it if the government gets out of the way.

    The answer is obvious, more government intervention and a commitment to far larger subsidy scams to destroy coal. It will all be sorted out in about 12 years.

    10

  • #
    pat

    deceptive headline; nothing to do with RE; $144 for business, not households; govt sets price, provides subsidy.

    behind paywall – published across NewsCorp:

    Electricity prices set to fall in regional Queensland by $144 a year after surge in renewables
    Courier Mail – 31 May 2019
    REGIONAL Queenslanders will get a cut to their power bills with new set prices recommended today…
    QCA chairman Professor Flavio Menezes said an expected surge in renewable energy entering the National Electricity Market in 2019-20 was behind the decision…
    The average household customer should see a $62 saving on their annual bill and small businesses should bank a saving of $144…

    31 May: MirageNews: Regional Qld power bills to fall again
    Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has welcomed another fall in regional power prices.
    From July 1, a typical household will pay ***$62 a year less, and a small business, $144 less.
    It’s the second year in a row the independent Queensland Competition Authority has recommended a price cut.
    “Bills fell this year and will fall again from 1 July, meaning all up over two years a typical small business will have saved $230 and a typical household, ***$82,” the Premier said…

    “This shows our Affordable Energy Plan is delivering on the cost of living for regional Queenslanders and that our renewable energy policies are helping put downward pressure on prices as well as cutting emissions,” Dr Lynham said…

    The QCA determines annual regional electricity prices, taking into account what consumers are paying in the competitive south-east Queensland market.
    ***The Palaszczuk Government has then subsidised the actual costs of delivering electricity so that consumers pay the price the QCA determines.
    In 2018-19, this subsidy was almost half-a-billion dollars…
    https://www.miragenews.com/regional-qld-power-bills-to-fall-again/

    ***$20 was the saving for households last year:

    31 Mar 2018: New Daily: Power bills drop for 700,000 Queenslanders
    Power bills in regional Queensland will fall by $20 a year for the average household, the regulator has determined…
    Average household bills will drop from $1542 to $1522, representing a 1.3 per cent drop amounting to about 5.5 cents per day…
    A small business would save about $86 a year, a 3.4 per cent saving…

    “A decline in network costs is the main reason for the tariff decreases,” Professor Green said.
    “Wholesale energy costs have also reduced, by smaller amounts. However, the network and wholesale energy cost decreases have been partially offset by higher costs associated with the Renewable Energy Target.”
    The solar feed-in tariff for regional Queenslanders will be cut by 7 per cent to 9.369 cents per kilowatt hour, meaning households with solar panels will get less back…
    https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/queensland/2018/05/31/power-bill-queensland-savings/

    00

  • #
    pat

    31 May: CNBC: How an island in the Baltic Sea is trying to make renewables a reliable part of its energy mix
    by Anmar Frangoul
    “To integrate large amounts of renewable energy into the power system two issues need to be solved,” Ilka Jahn, a PhD candidate at Stockholm’s KTH Royal Institute of Technology, told CNBC’s “Sustainable Energy.”
    “One is that, usually, the energy is not produced where it’s needed, so that’s a location problem,” she explained. “And the second one is that the energy is being produced at a time when it’s not needed, so that’s a timing problem.”
    Jahn added that, to overcome this, two things could be done. “One is to build more transmission capacity, so new power lines.” The second solution Jahn proposed was the building of more energy storage…
    On the Swedish island of Gotland, which is home to dozens of wind turbines, researchers from several organizations — including major Swedish utility Vattenfall, Schneider Electric and the KTH Royal Institute of Technology — have worked on a project called Smart Grid Gotland, which wrapped up in 2017…

    To give one example of how innovation was used during the project, households on the island were able to monitor their energy usage 24 hours per day. Using technology, they could adjust their heater’s settings so that it switched on when cheap, renewable electricity was available and turned off when prices went up…
    According to the ETIP Smart Networks for Energy Transition, which was set up by the European Commission, one result of the Smart Grid Gotland project was that it showed how it was “possible to make better use of renewable energy by incentivizing consumers to lower their energy consumption at times of limited renewable production.”…ETC
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/31/a-swedish-island-aims-to-make-renewables-reliable-part-of-energy-mix.html

    genius.

    20

  • #
    pat

    29 May: Uni of Exeter: Greater transparency needed over lobbyist influence on UK renewable energy schemes, research claims
    Richard (Lowes), a key member of Exeter’s prominent Energy Policy group, centred the research around the flagship Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) – a national scheme designed to encourage homes and businesses to switch to renewable and low-carbon heating.
    The study found that ‘niche actors’ – such as lobbyists and campaigners – were the most influential group during the early development stages of the RHI…

    A report by the National Audit Office (LINK), published last year on which Richard was an advisor, assessed a number of the scheme’s key factors, including value for money, take-up rates and cost-effectiveness. It shows that the scheme has had a small impact on UK carbon emissions and delivered more than 78,000 installations nationwide already in place.
    However it concludes that the scheme has not achieved value for money and has not deployed sustainable heat at the expected levels. It also explains that the Government does not have a reliable estimate of the amount it has overpaid participants who have not complied with the regulations, nor the impact of how participants may have ‘gamed’ the scheme to maximise profits…
    Policy change, power and the development of Great Britain’s Renewable Heat Incentive (LINK) is published in the journal Energy Policy and is available free online. Bridget Woodman and Oscar Fitch-Roy are co-authors.
    https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/research/title_718402_en.html

    the fall-out in Northern Ireland continues, tho not widely reported:

    4 May: CausewayCoastCommunity: Farmers facing ruin over botched RHI scheme – Holmes
    Ulster Unionist Councillor Richard Holmes has said that the cuts to RHI payments rushed through Parliament last month were a step too far and has warned that they have left many of the genuine applicants facing serious financial hardship…
    Richard Holmes said:
    “The RHI debacle was the biggest financial scandal in Northern Ireland. Every aspect of the scheme, from its original proposal, to its implementation and now to the cack-handed efforts to reign in the costs have been chaotic.
    “The reality is many of the applicants only entered the scheme after they were actively and repeatedly encouraged to do so by Northern Ireland Executive Departments.”…

    20 May: CivilServiceWorld: NI economy department mulls independent ‘hardship unit’ after RHI payments cut
    by Beckie Smith
    Panel will consider businesses’ claims of financial hardship after legislation reduces “Cash for Ash” payments
    Northern Ireland’s Department for the Economy is considering setting up an entirely independent panel to assess businesses’ claims that they face financial hardship becuase of changes to the controversial Renewable Heat Incentive scheme…

    The RHI, which was partly to blame for the collapse of Northern Ireland’s power-sharing agreement in January 2017, was launched in 2012 and offered substantial subsidies to farmers who agreed to use renewable energy sources to heat buildings…READ ON
    https://civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/ni-economy-department-mulls-independent-hardship-unit-after-rhi-payments-cut

    00

  • #
    pat

    31 May: EnergyVoice: ‘No surprise’ at permission for proposed Shetland wind farm turbines height to increase
    Last week, Scottish ministers gave the developer permission to increase the size of the turbines it wishes to use for the 450 megawatt development from 145 metres to 155 metres.
    Should Viking Energy win subsidy funding under the Contracts for Difference (CfD) mechanism and a £730 million subsea cable gets the final go-ahead, construction of the wind farm could begin as early as next year.

    Sustainable Shetland Frank Hay chairman said: “It comes as no surprise that Scottish Ministers have approved the Viking Energy wind farm variation application, given the Scottish Government obsession with wind power as a major energy source, in spite of its obvious drawbacks…
    He added: “As usual, little attention has been paid to the concerns of those local people who stand to be most affected by this.”
    “However, addressing the long list of conditions attached to the consent could prove to be very expensive for Viking Energy and reduce the potential profitability of the wind farm”…READ ON
    https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/200526/no-surprise-at-permission-for-proposed-shetland-wind-farm-turbines-height-to-increase/

    00

  • #
    BoyfromTottenham

    I just posted this reply on CatallaxyFiles.com in reply to Alan Moran’s article entitled “Can Australia regain the cheap electricity supply that politics has destroyed?”:

    Surely Alan, killing the LRET should be at the top of the list – its hidden $4 billion per annum tax on domestic and SME electricity consumers and correspondingly massive subsidy to ‘renewable generators’ totally distorts our electricity market from top to bottom, driving bad investment decisions and slowly bankrupting our ESSENTIAL base load generators. I have asked many times, but nobody can tell me why this is a taboo subject. Is it because the troughers would sue the pants of the federal government if they tried, or is there some other reason?
    Please tell me if I am wrong here, but IMHO a simple way for the government to strangle this odious and insidious regime (presumably without being sued, because the LRET subsidy is not legislated as a ‘subsidy’, so taking it away does not cause a ‘loss of income’) would be to reduce the current $65.00/MWH penalty for retailers not buying LRET ‘clean energy certificates’ to the point where the ‘market’ value of them was zero.
    This simple measure would do several things at once: end the hidden subsidy to ‘renewable generators’; significantly reduce the cost of electricity to retailers and therefore to us poor suffering plebs; restore the profitability of the base load generators, and restore sanity and cost transparency to the whole electricity market in Australia.
    Once the manifold positive effects of this became visible and were seen to be universally positive (except for the inevitable whining by one minor group of troughers) one would hope that a sensible parliament would then vote to kill the whole scheme, at which most of the electorate would applaud loudly.

    70

  • #
    Dave

    The Government has to start reducing these pseudo ENERGY groups all run by the Government
    1. Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC)
    2. Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
    3. Australian Energy Regulator (AER)
    4. Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)
    5. Clean Energy Finance Corp (CEFC)
    6. Clean Energy Regulator (CER)
    7. COAG Energy Council

    80

    • #
      Dave

      Hit POST with big thumb???
      8. Commercial Building Disclosure (CBD) program
      9. Department of the Environment and Energy
      10. Energy Consumers Australia
      11. Energy Rating
      12. EnergyMadeEasy
      13. National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS)
      14. Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS)
      15. Your Home
      These 15 use up BILLIONS of Dollars taken from TAXPAYERS and majority from Electricity Users!

      Then add in ABC, SBS, CSIRO, BOM and some UNIs like JUCNQ that waste BILLIONS again!

      81

  • #
    Speedy

    Bad science is no basis for good policy.

    Cheers,
    Mike

    60

  • #

    I’ll use that in my next letter to the guvuhmint. And also include this. https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_dec8.jpg

    20

  • #
    TdeF

    Why is it that people who vote for Brexit, Donald Trump and Nigal Farage and against open borders, more taxes, more windmills and control by the swamp in Washington, Brussels and Canberra are considered mindless morons?

    Shorten confirmed this. It was not that he promised massive taxation, stealing savings, forcing everyone to drive electric cars and build more planet saving windmills but that Clive Palmer and Rupert Murdoch spent more on the mindless fickle ignorant morons than he did.

    The open contempt of politicians for voters is extraordinary. Hillary, May, Merkel and now Shorten. It’s all someone else’s fault and the person who wins is the one who can fool the voters.

    There is abuse. By politicians of the electorate. There is no Climate emergency. After thirty years or rapid sea rise, nothing has happened. After thirty years of rapid warming, the place is colder. If scientists say we are all about to die, they are lying. How much more obvious can it be? Nothing is wrong, except that everyone wants your money to prevent armageddon. That at least has not changed since the sale of Indulgences in the middle ages to fund orgies in Rome. (I wonder how the moderating software goes with that?)

    100

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      YdeF
      The sale of indulgences funded the building of the new basilica of St Peters on Vatican hill in Rome..

      Any Roman orgies funded by indulgences were purely a ‘side effect’

      :-)

      20

  • #
    pat

    1 Jun: Ballarat Courier: Wind farm visual screening questions raised as Lal Lal project nears finish
    by Alex Ford
    How much screening is enough to block out a 161 metre tall wind turbine in your backyard?
    That’s the question facing hundreds of people that have found themselves neighbours to turbines popping up across the district…

    “Not even in 20 years time are they going to be close to blocking them out, I don’t know what they’re thinking there.”
    He said neighbours should have been fully informed about the program before construction began, instead of being told when it was almost finished…READ ON
    https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/6190775/how-many-trees-to-block-a-wind-turbine-questions-asked-over-visual-screening/?cs=62

    10

  • #
    pat

    1 Jun: ScienceAlert: Our Sun’s Mysterious 11-Year Cycle Appears to Be Driven by Alignment of The Planets
    by MICHELLE STARR
    “There is an astonishingly high level of concordance: what we see is complete parallelism with the planets over the course of 90 cycles,” said physicist Frank Stefani of the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf in Germany.
    “Everything points to a clocked process.”
    What the team found is that the tidal forces are strongest when Earth, Venus, and Jupiter align, and that this alignment occurs every 11.07 years – falling at the same time as the solar minimum…
    The research has been published in Solar Physics (LINK).
    https://www.sciencealert.com/the-sun-s-11-year-cycle-have-may-have-something-to-do-with-the-gravity-of-the-planets

    10

  • #
    pat

    31 May: NY Post: Cuomo’s ‘renewable’ fiasco
    By Post Editorial Board
    The Empire Center’s Ken Girardin recently broke the news (LINK) that the state last year generated slightly less electricity from renewable sources (wind, hydroelectric and solar) than it did in 2017.
    Maybe that’s why Cuomo is shifting from a goal of “50 by 30” — having half New York’s power come from renewables by 2030 — to a “70 by 30” benchmark: He figures greens can be fooled by talk.
    Never mind that the state has yet to meet the 30 percent target it set back in 2010, which it was supposed to reach four years ago.

    Nor that the feds are phasing out their subsidies for wind and solar, making it even harder (and more expensive) for those industries to grow.
    Nor that communities across the state are nixing proposals for giant wind and solar “farms” — which has forced the governor to push for offshore wind farms, the most expensive single way to generate electricity.

    In fact, most of New York’s “renewable” energy comes from hydropower, which is tough to scale up. Plus, alternative energy faces a growing transmission problem: You have to get the electricity to the customers, which means major new power lines to connect new solar and wind plants to the grid.
    Oh, and the same forces that fight new power plants “in my back yard,” also stand in the way of new power lines.
    Not to mention that wind and solar don’t reliably generate electricity at the times of peak demand — which means you need carbon-based backup plants or you’re going to have blackouts.
    Final problem: Thanks to Cuomo, the two Indian Point nuclear plants are to shut down this year and next…ETC
    https://nypost.com/2019/05/31/cuomos-renewable-fiasco/

    10

    • #
      TdeF

      This is the need for commandable and reliable power, not unreliables.

      You need the car to work when you want to use the car, not when the planet chooses. You need the lights on in an operating theatre when you are operating, not when the patient has expired. In manufacturing there are many processes which cannot be halted, as the pots freeze solid and the smelter is destroyed. The bread does not rise and becomes rock. The elevator stops mid floor.

      Its’ not the % of power which is generated, but the % which is commandable. That is only hydro, nuclear, coal, oil and gas. It is not wind and solar and wave power, unless you are King Canute. Interruptables, undependables. The curse of the Green druids. As useless as a flywire door on a submarine, an ashtray on a motorbike, a wooden frying pan.

      60

  • #
  • #
    Ted O'Brien

    Jo, you use the term “nerd”.

    I saw recently a scholarly discussion of the origin of the word. They hadn’t a clue.

    It originated on Wall St, and referred to the “Thunderin(g H)erds” who rush to buy and sell because other people are buying or selling i. e. people who are not very bright in their own right.

    It is amazing how quickly scholars can lose the plot.

    20

  • #
    gowest

    You wont get any backdown from the govt – they are drunk on the taxes they make from higher power prices. Their Public services depend on it for their next pay rise or promotion…
    Forget about complaining about the reason for the global warming taxes. The govt is laughing at you as they take, take and take…

    00

  • #
    John

    Well duh, of course electricity is more expensive when we still have 75% coal! That’s why power is so expensive nowadays. Havent ya’ heard? Renewable are CHEAPER than coal*. QED, if that 75% coal was immediately swapped for renewables the price would go down.

    *- Includes carbon pricing. Excludes renewable storage costs. Individual results may vary.

    00