An exercise like you have done here is always an invaluable thing.

What it does is to highlight how a seemingly large power installation can be proved to be almost insignificant.

You think of a power plant as being large, and you are told that, on top of that, a ‘LARGE’ battery is then being added to the (in this case) wind farm plant. Without the knowledge and understanding, the ordinary person thinks this is then a large supply of power.

But when it is isolated out (as you have done here Robber) and explained, it actually becomes almost small by comparison, unable to cover even a small area, and hugely expensive on top of that.

Therein lies the real explanation of how they get away with something like this.

If it WAS done in isolation, then the real truth of the matter would become evident, and people would see it for what it really is, a huge cost for very little.

However, they get away with it because it is ….. connected to the grid. That gives the impression that it is a secure, reliable constant source of power, and anyway, the average punter knows little else anyway, just that power is always there, so the assumption is that this small (by comparison) wind plant and its battery actually can supply the needed power.

Hundreds of little plants like these are attached all across the vast and huge grid, but the percentage of the power all those tiny plants deliver is almost negligible, it is sporadic in nature, there when it may not be needed, absent when it really is needed, and very costly, and all of that is neatly covered by ….. THE GRID, the huge overall total that is always there, and because it is always there, then the impression is that the little tiddlers like this are doing their bit to contribute.

Once upon a time, it was all so simple. Now, with all these tiny little plants all over the Countryside, the grid has become a hugely more complex thing to operate smoothly. They come, they go, with their power, and the average person has no idea how often that happens, and how little they deliver, all neatly covered up by the grid.

Tony.

10

In summary, Anarchists want to abolish private property AND abolish the state – an impossible state of human existence. Even tribal societies had a chief (government) and fought over property ownership (land, resources).

10

Therefore, to be completely dependent on “free” wind from Hornsdale and proudly 100% “renewable”, you would need to invest about $600 million to build the wind farm, and then about $1.3 billion to provide 15 times the current battery capacity. That gives you reserve to cover one day of no wind. Want insurance, with cover for two windless days? That will cost $2.6 billion.

Alternatively, as SA did you could compromise on your 100% renewables commitment, and buy diesel or gas generators as backup. SA spent $340 million for 276 MW of diesel generators. In our 100 MW municipality, we require 150 MW peak capacity, so that will set us back a mere $185 million. But now on windless days we will be 100% fossil based – a big fail.

Now tell me again how “cheap” renewables are, and how it will be so easy for Australia to move to zero emissions yet maintain reliable electricity.

30

The speech marked a shift in the prince’s own thinking as well. In 2009, Charles warned that mankind had until just 2017 to save the planet. Only last year he argued that mankind was probably too late.

But before meeting the bankers and Greta Thunberg at Davos this year, our king-to-be had changed his tune. The prince now wants to ‘kickstart a decade of action’ alongside his newly enlightened friends in high places. Partly in the hope that the Thunberg generation will no longer ‘accuse’ him of ‘doing nothing’.

According to Charles, what has changed is that in the past two or three years, more of the world’s money – sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, insurance and asset portfolios – has gone into green technologies, on which returns are more and more out-performing those on traditional investment portfolios. Many central banks and financial institutions have also committed to ‘integrating climate risk into stress-testing, supervision and disclosure’, with mandatory disclosure coming next…

HRH envisages a ‘convening role’ for himself in all this. He will get to most, if not all, of this year’s major global meetings – the G7 summit, the G20 summit, certainly the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, maybe even the 2020 United Nations Climate Change Conference. He will do his utmost ‘to ensure that the message of urgency, systemic change, collaboration and integration is heard’…

The prince’s forthcoming interventions will be part of a much wider Sustainable Markets Initiative, which he will run with cash from the WEF…
The new green era promises to be a great climate for royals and business people, but it looks a bit less rosy for the rest of us.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/24/the-prince-and-the-profiteers/

11 Feb: UK Express: Prince Charles ‘far more dangerous’ to crown than Meghan Markle and Prince Harry
PRINCE CHARLES is a greater “danger” to the future of the Royal Family than the newly-independent Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, opinion columnist Rita Panahi claimed.
By Aurora Bosotti
VIDEO “OUTSIDERS” 55sec
Ms Panahi suggested Charles’ tendency to be “political” could affect his future reign…
Ms Panahi insisted the Queen should make arrangements for Prince William to succeed her to keep the Prince of Wales from “polluting” the Royal Family with his political views…

Prince Charles was heavily criticised in the past after he was revealed to have had an intense correspondence with Cabinet ministers and politicians over his reign as Prince of Wales.
The “Black Spider memos” included discussions on a wide range of issues including climate change, farming, and sustainability…

PIC: Some members of the public have called on Charles to have his eldest son William become King (Image: GETTY)

The Prince of Wales has emerged through the years as an outspoken advocate for the environment and last month launched a new scheme with the World Economic Forum to promote efforts to create more sustainable markets…

Despite his calls for a revolutionary overhaul of the global economy, including the introduction of “green taxes”, Prince Charles chose to travel to the 700 miles (1,100km) to Switzerland on a private jet.
A poll conducted by Express.co.uk last month found a majority of the 13,547 respondents think Prince Charles has become “too political” for his role.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1240157/Charles-Prince-of-Wales-news-Royal-Family-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-latest-news

20

Speaking in an interview on the Sustainable Markets website, the Prince said: ‘Everything we are doing has been to destroy our own means of survival, let alone the survival of everything else we depend on…
He recently launched his latest project, the Sustainable Markets Initiative and Council, supported by the World Economic Forum.

The initiative aims to bring together leading individuals from the public and private sectors, charitable bodies and investors to identify ways to rapidly decarbonise the global economy.
The Prince added that scientists and evidence indicate that people are causing a ‘much more rapid rise in temperature and a much more rapid destruction of the Arctic and now the Antarctic’…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8017939/Weve-got-10-years-save-planet-warns-Prince-Charles.html

worth remembering:

25 June 2019: Bloomberg: Wind Power Drives Record $437 Million Income for Queen’s Property Company
By Jack Sidders
The Crown Estate manages the seabed off England, Wales and Northern Ireland, where thousands of wind turbines are being built…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-24/wind-power-drives-u-k-crown-estate-s-437-million-record-income

00

20 Feb: HeraldScotland: Outrage as wind farm revolution offers just 6% of Scots ministers’ jobs forecast
Exclusive by Martin Williams
SCOTLAND’S forecast of a jobs bonanza from the offshore wind farm revolution has been described as “a pipe dream” as it emerged it has created just 6% of the 28,000 direct jobs predicted by this year.
New official estimates state that there were just 1,700 full-time jobs in the offshore wind sector in Scotland, a fraction of the numbers projected by ministers by 2020.

The Scottish Government’s low carbon strategy published in 2010 which described the large scale development of offshore wind as representing the “biggest opportunity for sustainable economic growth in Scotland for a generation” with Scotland having an estimated 25% of Europe’s offshore wind potential It said there was a potential for the creation of 28,000 direct jobs and £7.1 billion investment by 2020.
A Unite Scotland source said: “It is scandalous. These figures are truly unbelievable.”…
The latest jobs figures have come off the back of the “scandal” of Scotland’s green revolution being increasingly placed in foreign hands…READ ALL
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18247331.outrage-wind-farm-revolution-offers-just-6-scots-ministers-jobs-forecast/

10

Coal fired power plants emit less CO2 per kWh than Renewables.

Construction, operation and eventual decommissioning make Renewables CO2 emitters of the highest order.

The lie continues.

KK

20

I simply don’t trust Morrison…and we can be absolutely certain that if he dudded the ‘quiet Australians’as he’s done many times….ie if he made sure the terms of reference would deny a real voice to sceptics/conservatives….he would become the hero of the LW journalists like Coorey….who would make the betrayal a triumph for Morrison because out of the whole Australian population…we are the ones they have the most visceral contempt for.

30

10

Coal-fired power companies are Australia’s worst carbon emitters, according to the Clean Energy Regulator, with the top five alone contributing 116 million tonnes of carbon equivalent in 2017-18.
EnergyAustralia’s emissions drop last financial year – from 21.7 to 20.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – was largely driven by a 9 per cent decline in output from unplanned outages and planned maintenance outages across its big generators.

An emissions fall is also likely to be reported by AGL, the nation’s biggest generator, after a unit at its Loy Yang A coal-fired plant in Victoria was forced out of service in May due to an electrical short and was not brought back online until December.

***”All of this emphasises the fact that replacing coal is the quickest and most urgent thing we need to do to cut emissions,” said Jono La Nauze, chief executive of Environment Victoria, the state’s peak body for conservation groups.
“It’s no good for anyone that it’s happening in a haphazard, accidental way, when clapped-out old power stations give up the ghost. Sure it reduces emissions, but it leaves everyone without reliable power and drives up the cost of doing business.”…

New research from progressive think tank the Australia Institute finds Victoria’s ageing coal-fired power plants are the least-reliable and most failure-prone on the east-coast energy grid. Loy Yang A and Yallourn were ranked the two worst-performing, suffering 67 breakdowns between them over 2018 and 2019…
https://www.watoday.com.au/business/companies/emissions-for-australia-s-second-heaviest-polluter-fall-after-outages-20200219-p542ak.html

00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSg3h_eIvBw&feature=em-lsp

10

he is against the Collinsville coal plant in Qld, because Qld already has more than enough energy!
(forget Qld exports energy south. ignore all the RE dreamers who want Australia to spend tens of billions of dollar on excess “renewables” to export overseas so we can be a world leader in RE)

like Albanese – see Treeman comment #25, Guardian article – Fitzgibbon is against the whopping $4 million (lol) the Federal Govt has allocated toward a feasibility study into Collinsville.
(the piddling $4m is total rubbish. just get on with it)

Fitzgibbon refused to say Labor would stop subsidies for RE should they win back Govt eventually. says REs need incentives so we can transition when those “ageing” coal plants shut down, of course.
(if you don’t build new coal plants, of course the old ones will be “ageing”).

and this guy is considered pro-coal?

30

Conductors are rated for a certain load. The conductor sizes have weird names like “Pluto” and “Apple”. The design load can be increased from what was originally intended (ie the rating can be upped) if a higher operating temperature is accepted by the operator. These higher operating temps lead to more conductor sag and increased “conductor blow out” distances – or the distance a conductor can swing in the wind.

It would be very interesting to compare the original design spec for the interconnector to what it has been operating at recently. I reckon I know what you would find if you were able to do the analysis.

20

The whole enabling theory behind the use of, so called, Renewables is that less CO2 per kWh of generated electricity will be “emissioned” than with coal fired power stations.

Any qualified person would look at total mass of each material used in construction, its CO2 “carry on” and lifespan within the two systems being examined.

Cradle to grave analysis for renewables to put out A/C of equivalent amount from coal fired plants would be illuminating.

Why hasn’t it been done?

The economies of scale inherent in Coal Fired power stations are obvious, and yet the ridiculous claim that Renewables produce less CO2 is allowed to continue without criticism!

KK

10

30