The Tasmanian Government has just announced they will be “200% renewable” by 2040 — a feat only possible because they have an umbilical cord to hostages in the mainland who have to pay for irrelevant surges in electricity that arrive when they don’t need it. The same hostages will send back fossil powered electricity every week to keep Tasmania running when the wind and sun stop and the water is worth more in the dam than out of it. Not to mention container-ships of GST cash to support the state with the second highest unemployment in the nation.
This is the same state that went 100% renewable for three months in 2015 and launched itself into an electricity crisis. They decommissioned the last fossil fuel power station, just in time to get islanded by a break in their umbilical cable and thence had to order flying squads of diesel generators to keep the lights on at a cost of at least $140m. They also had to restart the same plant they just closed. The state lost half a billion dollars in the crisis — nearly twice the cost of the newish gas plant which had only built in 2009.
Meanwhile, they’re aiming for 200% renewable, but the state has yet to get back to the magic 100% renewable, but hopes to by 2022.
All these quarters in the red below are ones where Tasmania needed to import up to 30 percent of its own electricity from the mainland. Not visible here are all the days during the blue “export” quarters where generators in Victoria kept the lights on in Hobart.
Tasmanian Electricity — quarterly interstate transfers — Imports (red) and Exports (blue)
All the high export “blue” quarters in 2013 -2015 were during the carbon tax era. Tasmanian Hydro was running the dams down in El Nino conditions through carbon tax funded greed. The state got so desperately short of water in 2016 the intellectual giants in charge of Tas Hydro paid to do cloud seeding to fill the dams. Which would have been fine if they weren’t trying to do it in the face of a monster storm front that created flash flooding.
Too bad the Sun shines and the wind blows at the same time in Tasmania as it does in Victoria
Wind farms in both states are highly correlated so the extra energy will be pushed onto Victoria when it doesn’t need it. More unreliable power dumped on the National Grid just means that last reliable generators run less efficiently and have to raise their prices or go broke.
Droughts in both states are also “correlated”. The government hopes Tasmania will be the battery of the nation, but short of moving the island to Peru, when there’s a drought in Australia, the battery might be flat.
Money from the mothership is probably also coming for the Hydrogen Projects the state is planning, and possibly (who knows) to fund the unneeded second undersea interconnector which will benefit foreign companies like UPC Renewables who want to build the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere. It’s a project so unpopular even the Greens in Tasmania don’t want it.
Interconnectors are always sold as “opening up potential” but they are hugely expensive, the potential they open isn’t economic in its own right, and the billion-dollar cables wouldn’t be needed if states were self-sufficient with baseload stable power like they all used to be, and could be again.
Preliminary findings from that study indicate that the benefits of a second interconnector could outweigh the costs by $500 million.
But a 2016 report into the feasibility of adding a second undersea link suggested it would not be worth the $1 billion investment unless at least 1,000MW of new renewable energy capacity was built in Tasmania. — Reneweconomy
Australia has 300 years of perfectly good cheap coal, and probably a million years worth of uranium. Energy policy doesn’t have to be this dumb.
They need a new method for assessing net renewable. It’s a joke that people can dump cheap low value power into the grid during gluts and extract high value power during shortages and claim neutrality.
It’s ridiculous that Canberra for example runs on 80% coal power yet claims to be “100% renewable”.
Tassie going “200% renewable” is more of the same nonsense.
Renewable energy dumped into the grid during a power glut shouldn’t count the same as energy you use during a shortage. They should equate it based on current wholesale price, or something like that.
300
John – The answer surely is to put all power on the same basis: generators generate and offer to the market; retailers are free to choose the best deal for their customers. Renewable energy is so cheap now that it would simply wipe the floor with the old coal and gas, maybe even hydro, no subsidies needed. Wouldn’t they??? … ??? … ???
141
Yes I agree it should be level playing field.
I was talking specifically about the dubious claims of 75/100/200% renewable, which are artificial numbers. A kWh dumped into the grid during a glut isn’t equivalent to a kWh drawn from the grid during a period of shortages. The wholesale prices reflect this. But the offset figures don’t.
110
Great idea John. Let’s assess how many percent renewable they are by the minimum baseload provided by renewables in an given year.
Someone do those sums so we can say if say SA is at least guaranteed to be 3% renewable — though that may be a bit much…
80
Low points for SA renewables generation for February per Anero.id:
Feb 10 2am to 8am, solar nil, Wind less than 50 MW.
Feb 17 4am-7am, solar nil, wind 20 MW.
So all they need is 6 hours times 1000 MW (overnight demand) from a big battery, equals 6,000 Mwhr.
Oh wait, that’s about 46 times the capacity of that Hornsdale wind farm world’s biggest battery at 129 MWhr that cost $90 million.
90
AEMO fuel mix for the last 12 months in SA credits Gas with 57% Wind 39% and Solar 4%. Although listed, the battery (which seems silly to list as a generator) doesnt make it into significant digits and is zero.
For a State so over endowed with wind power to the point of it being a problem, 39% is mediocre but probably no surprise to readers here.
40
yarpos:
AEMO has been curtailing wind production in SA to stabilise the system. A minimum of gas/diesel at all times, and wind is optional. Anything more than the demand + export results in some wind farms told to stop generating. That is why the Capacity Factor has dropped to 27% because they can’t always generate when the wind blows.
When the interconnector to Vic failed, the result was running diesel as hard as it could go, and more restrictions on wind.
Electranet is spending $180 million on synchronous supply (basically a coal fired power station without the fuel. This will be used for frequency stabilisation. That, by the way is about $1,000 per head and obviously won’t reduce the electricity bills.
Then we have the farcical interconnector to Wagga Wagga built with money from taxpayers outside SA, to enable the wind farms to dump very cheap power when the wind blows strongly and import more expensive power when the wind stops blowing. And I haven’t mentioned losses in transmission.
Comment about the intellectual capacity of the SA Minister for electricity deleted
50
“Comment about the intellectual capacity of the SA Minister for electricity deleted”
I doubt you could use the terms “intellectual capacity”, and “SA Minister for …..”, in the same sentence, except to say they are not related in any way.
10
We first need to get rid of the hugely distorting requirement that renewable power is taken first. If its so cheap and good then it no longer needs this cheating head start does it?
With that sorted I am sure that minimal further investment in renewables will occur until a technology to cheaply store power is invented – think we will die waiting….
90
Maybe Tasmania can use their own wind power and shut down their hydro during the windy periods. That way they retain the water in their dams for use during calm periods.
Tassie is very fortunate to have a legacy hydro system and a fairly high rainfall
140
I think you will find they already do that whenever possible…. though its hard to tell exactly why and when TAS imports/exports power to the mainland.
And see my comment at #7
30
Make them switch to pumped storage to use surplus wind generation.
No need for an interconnector.
Reduces the reliance on rain.
Then sit back as the Greens protest about the damage to the environment.
70
Ah well they clear felled the transmission line path to the latest wind fantasy. They may as well go for broke (probably literally) like the Scots https://stopthesethings.com/2020/02/22/scotlands-wind-industry-clear-fells-17283-acres-wipes-out-14000000-trees-to-save-planet/
50
But then
“Climate Justice Warriors Protest Against Wind Power…”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/05/climate-justice-warriors-protest-against-wind-power/
Shades of that description of a certain nationality –
“Don’t know what they want and will fight anyone to get it”
40
It’s typical of social justice warriors to follow insane causes. They just hate our Western way of life they are willing to do anything to destroy it. The thing is they don’t have to do a thing. The incompetents in control are doing that job for them, just not as fast.
70
Tasmania’s energy woes is playing out like a Greek tragedy, if they’re not careful they’ll be the second people to become extinct on that island in recent history.
100
I would suggest it’s more like an ancient (c. 400 BC) tragic comedy. It doesn’t quite fit “tragedy” and neither does it fit “comedy”
Going off topic, as I’ve been known to do 😀
Speaking of tragic comedy” your idiot ABC — as in blethering dead from the neck up with completely dense and ossified grey matter in a complete vacancy of mind and with total poverty of intellect published this … umm … work of dumb, ignorant, uneducated, piece of scholastic hebetude, yet another blot on the ABC copybook, a piece of word botchery so bad as to set records of unintelligent unreasoning
Oooh! Now it’s a mass extinction within a mass extinction. How many species of humans are there on the planet? Let’s see now:
there’s the abc humans comprising editors (dumb), copy editors (even dumber), reporters (dumbest), manglers at all levels from the top down, each a separate species, board directors (? is the abc even directed? to set policy) and plebs to make the tea. So, if every job is occupied by its own species, then maybe, just maybe, the abc is sufficiently bio-diverse so avoid and evade a suitable, and apt in-house extinction of the dead wood and the useless and instead partake in a singular mass extinction. There are political humans, all levels of government humans and so on.
My favourite line from out of the many clamouring for (dis-) honourable recognition is:
I nearly fell off my chair while laughing hard about that.
If the author had said “ global cooling” I wouldn’t have laughed so hard.
He’s clueless! Absolutely clueless. Here’s a couple of reasons:
1. Humans evolved in and around central Africa. It’s more than 1.5°C warmer there than here. We are adapted for warm climes.
2. He forgot all about clothing. One reason we are such a successful animal is our Long Time Ago In A Previous Ice Age invention of that convenient little thing. We don’t have any fur (yes, I’ve seen some pretty hirsute guys too but that’s not fur!) other than a little on our heads. We regulate our body temperature by adding or removing clothing. See what I mean about clueless?
3. He forgot about diurnal temperature ranges being far more than the 1.5 ° they’re all so scared of. I’ve lived through days when it’s been nearly 15° C and I’m not extinct yet.
That’s only three problems with his article. One species — homo sapiens sapiens — does not a mass extinction make. (that’s 4).
If you can be bothered reading the article, then climb aboard this weekend’s Anything Goes and list more faults/failures.
I invite the author to make our month and year and go extinct.
60
I thought it was a parody piece it was that cliche, very nihilistic as was the facts that equalled nil.
31
Australia as a whole could produce far more 200% zero emissions power, and do it for far less cost than renewables. Just use nuclear. Simples.
120
Even with intent it would be hard to design a more stupid, unreliable, and fraught with potential problems, system than the one that our nation appears to be embracing.
100
Even with intent …
Amazing what random inept corruption can achieve really isn’t it?
71
“200% renewable [but not really]”
this really shows what it is all about.
politicians virtue signalling about how great they are using dodgy statistics.
90
It wouldn’t be a first time.
The UN at the end of the 2011 Durban CoP nearly published a number of proposals which would have reduced the rest of the world to laughter. (Somebody caught them Just In Time!)
1. Establish a Climate Court against Western Nations only.
2. CO2 concentration to be cut to 210pmmv
3. Western Greenhouse Gas(es) must peak at once
4. Western Nations must cut emissions by more than 100%
There were some others but these were the prize imbecilic offerings.
60
How exactly do they measure this 200% renewable generation ?
By my estimates ( Anero data) .. TAS already has 2800 MW of wind and Hydro available ( + a chunk of gas and diesel). ..to supply a demand tht averages less than 1100MW,..1300MW peak ??
So techniclly they already are above 200% RE . ??
50
Probably by converting it to GWh they calculate the total amount of energy generated compared to the total demand.
Which is a great way to hide the crippling variability.
40
But jo, its not possible to generate more than the demand can they ?
And any surplus capacity does not show in either of those figures
So “capacity” can only be quoted on nameplate figures.
10
Could everyone please make themselves available while I schedule a service for your ‘Boondoggle Machine’?
Yes, yes. I know you didn’t ask for a ‘Boondoggle Machine’, don’t actually know what one is*, and in fact, didn’t even know you had one in the first place, but just remember that if you cannot see it then you are a “science denier”, “racist” and probably both.
There is quite a substantial fee for this (compulsory) “service” but don’t worry, we have a special arrangement with Big Government to collect the fee surreptitiously from your taxes; a small price to pay to “save the planet”.
* ‘Boondoggle Machines’ proactively protect baby Pandas, baby Koalas and baby Seals from random meteorite strikes (oh, and kittens too – everyone loves kittens). There is overwhelming scientific evidence that an increase in the population of cute and cuddly furry creatures thickens the atmosphere, which vapourises chunks of earth-bound space rock; a known cause of “Climate Change™”(obviously), earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, and Corona Viruses. And besides, you wouldn’t want to be a kitten murderer, would you?
110
Viscount Christopher Monkton cheerfully pointed out that:
the planet was saved two thousand years ago and doesn’t need saving again.
I’ll go with Chris, this time.
40
Perhaps someone should suggest clearing a few hundred hectares of Tasmanian wilderness to build a windfarm, and connect it to the grid.
50
…OR. Building a few more dams to run more Hydro !
..no one will notice or care.
….will they ?
40
The insidious thing in all of this is that the average person thinks that because this can be done in one State, then it can be scaled up. (Two States really because you also need to include SouthAus) NSW, Qld, and Vic make up (almost) 90% of all power consumption.
Tasmania is the smallest power consuming State in Australia, with just 5.75% of all power consumption.
They (Tasmania) already manage 96% of all their generated power coming from renewables. Hydro makes up 83.1% of that. Wind makes up 11.2%. There are no solar power plants, and they have the smallest percentage of rooftop solar power in the Country, at 1.7%, mainly due to it having the lowest Insolation in the Country, hence a very small power generation from those rooftop panels, no matter how many homes are covered in panels.
They are also a nett Importer of power. (from Victoria, via Basslink) Power Exports come in at 9.1% and Power Imports total 10.3%
I have no idea how they will reach 200%, with hydro making up so much of that original 100%, so to be in the mix, they would effectively need to double the number of dams with hydro plants attached, and that won’t happen.
If they wanted to do it with wind power, then that means the construction of a total Nameplate of just under 4000MW of new wind plants. The current Tasmanian total Nameplate is 566MW, and the current total for the whole of Australia is 6960MW for perspective purposes, so Tasmania would need to construct a new 60% of Australia’s total wind power plants. 4000MW of new wind will not happen in Tasmania ….. ever, let alone by 2040.
The original statement totally and utterly neglects to take Capacity Factor into account, and just uses Nameplate alone, hence the difference between their figures and mine.
Talk is cheap. All that new renewable power is horrendously expensive.
It won’t happen, no matter who says it will.
Tony.
270
Tony….see #7
To most people , 200% would mean double what they need/use.
On RE nameplate values technically, they already exceed that figure.!
40
“I have no idea how they will reach 200%, with hydro making up so much of that original 100%,”
Maybe they are gonna build a dam across the Bass strait? (that would be one of the more reasonable alarmist proposals).
30
They may just do it with paper shuffling the way the ACT does, they just “invest” elsewhere harvest subsidies and pretend power coming out of ACT power points is “renewable” Part scam / part delusion but it lets people give themselves awards and accolades.
40
Tony
Keep mentioning capacity factors, as its very important. Shell keep advertising on LinkedIn about their proposed solar plant which will generate “up to”120 MW. But thanks to your flagging of the capacity factor that is only around 30MW maybe less if capacity factor is taken into account. Not much power to sell!
The problem is that at some point it can be generating 120MW and that has to be soaked up somewhere, and presumably we have all the other solar plants pushing it out at that rate as well at the same time, overwhelming the grid…
41
Relying on the extension cord when you have high intermittent generation hasn’t worked out too good for South Australia but hey what do I know .
60
Do what SA did and
askdemand that a second interconnector be installed so unwanted renewable output can be sent to disrupt another State.40
Just to put some figures on Tas electricity supply/demand so far in March, from OpenNEM:
Sun; min demand 1022 MW, wind 85 MW, hydro 650 MW imports 287 MW; max demand 1265 MW, wind 35 MW, hydro 1620, exports 397 MW.
Mon: min demand 1034 MW. wind 293, hydro 297, imports 445 MW; max demand 1300 MW, wind 316, hydro 758, imports 210.
Tues: min demand 1014 MW, wind 132, hydro 567, imports 317; max demand 1332 MW, wind 59, hydro 1424, exports 181 MW.
Wed: min demand 1002 MW, wind 108, hydro 710, imports 185; max demand 1241 MW, wind 123, hydro 1278, exports 169 MW.
Thurs: min demand 1014 MW, wind 196, hydro 792, exports 83; max demand 1263, wind 180, hydro 1297, exports 218 MW.
For the last 7 days, total demand 192 GWh, wind 26, hydro 182, imports 15, exports 25 GWh, and solar 4. Average price $33/MWhr, last 7 months $60, previous 12 months $90.
So like NZ, Tas lives on those long ago investments in hydro, available on demand as long as the the rain falls, that greens probably wouldn’t allow today.
Tas has 2274 MW of hydro, 566 MW of wind, and 372 MW of gas stations on standby,.
60
But, but but…..
The Greenists say it’s never going to rain again
EVER !
That means zero hydo power !
60
… but pumped hydro fixes that.
40
by pumping non existent water?
30
This claim of going 200% RE is coming from a tiny island that generates no measurable emissions anyway, and therefore is completely meaningless. You might as well make the same claim for Antarctica or even the moon. What this claim does highlight is the complete stupididy of the climate alarmist movement, in that it remains totally fixated on the tiniest and insignificant sources of emissions, including our 1% nationally, but ignores and even defends the biggest single source from China.
70
You totally discountthe feelgood factor. I can feel the virtuous glow from over here on the mainland and it will help Tassie become an even bigger greenie tourism mecca. They will be able to give away free carbon credits with your bookings, it will be awesome!
20
Chris Kenny/Sky just unloaded on this ABC/RMIT Fact Check. will post if the video comes online:
6 Mar: ABC/RMIT Fact Check: Craig Kelly says Australia had more rainfall in the first 20 years of this century than the first 20 years of last century. Is he correct?
Updated about 2 hours ago
Principal researcher: Natasha Grivas
VERDICT: FLAWED
In a combative exchange with meteorologist Laura Tobin on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, Mr Kelly argued against the long-term drying out of the Australian landscape…
Mr Kelly responded: “There’s a few issues there. Firstly, the first 20 years of this century we’ve had more rainfall in Australia than [over] the first 20 years of the last century.”
He expanded on the claim on his Facebook page, writing…
The verdict
Mr Kelly’s claim is flawed.
Data collected by the Bureau of Meteorology shows an increase in Australia’s annual average rainfall for the first two decades of this century compared to the years 1900 to 1919.
However, experts contacted by Fact Check said this was a flawed means of assessing rainfall patterns and drying trends overall in view of Australia’s vast landscape and the high variability in rainfall behaviour.
They said the national average disguised regional differences, which were most starkly felt between the north and the south of the continent…READ ON AND ON
Experts told Fact Check that because Australia is such a large country national averages wouldn’t reflect regional changes.
Anna Ukkola, of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, told Fact Check: “Talking about ‘Australian’ rainfall is just as useful as talking about European or Asian rainfall.”
“The north/north-west of the country has been getting wetter and drives much of the national increase. But parts of the south-west and south-east have been getting drier, in particular in the cool season …”
“In south-western Australia, the last two decades have been the driest since records began in 1900.”…READ ON AND ON
(Ben Henley, a lecturer working in Monash University’s School of Earth Atmosphere and Environment) added: “We’re acutely interested in understanding when and where the changes in the hydrological system occur and what’s driving them.
“I’m concerned that highlighting particular aspects of the data, without having concern for other aspects, can lead to a broader misunderstanding about the very serious nature of climate change. We have to look at the full picture.
“Climate change is the single biggest challenge ever faced by humanity. We have absolutely no time to lose.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-06/fact-check-craig-kelly-rainfall-drought/12016214
what a pathetic bunch of alarmists. of course, the CAGW mob always look at the full picture!!!
60
Of course, Using BOM’s own graphs, Craig Kelly’s statements was absolutely correct
https://i.postimg.cc/BnDmXvLM/Australian-rainfall-history.jpg
And not by a close margin , either.
Australia has been FAR wetter in the period 2000-2019 than in 1900-1919.
60
You know someone was largely correct when an ABC fact check finds their statement to be “flawed” or “misleading”.
When someone is wrong the ABC will just say “false”
50
behind paywall:
Green ‘lawfare’ a $65bn deal hit to projects
The Australian-20 hours ago
Green activists are using a back door on environmental laws to delay … Dennis Shanahan has been The Australian’s Canberra Bureau Chief …
50
more on the article “Green ‘lawfare’ a $65bn deal hit to projects”:
VIDEO: 4m30s: 5 Mar: Facebook: Sky News “Front Page”: Green lawfare ‘needs to be tackled head on’
Sky News contributor Dan Petrie says green lawfare “is a self-fulfilling prophecy for self-assured destruction from an economic point of view”.
https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/1332273553624692/
40
5 Mar: Yahoo: ABC’s GoodMorningAmerica: How coronavirus impacts climate change with emissions reductions
by Julia Jacobo
The emergence of the coronavirus as a world health epidemic and fears of it spreading have halted air and ground travel in some regions of the world and stalled it elsewhere, significantly reducing the amount of carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere.
Pollution monitoring satellites from NASA and the European Space Agency have detected significant decreases of nitrogen dioxide over China since Jan. 1, following the outbreak of the virus — evidence that the noxious gas being emitted by motor vehicles, power plants and industrial facilities has nearly come to a complete stop…
The question is: Is the reduction in emissions enough to mitigate climate change and the environmental dangers that come with it? According to experts, the answer is no…
Scientists can find similar reductions in emissions in other points of history where economic slowdowns occurred, such as World War II and the Great Recession, Richard Alley, a geosciences professor at Penn State University who specializes in climate change, told ABC News.
Events such as those have “made tweaks” in emissions, but they haven’t changed the overall upward trend, Alley said…READ ON
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/severe-reduction-emissions-coronavirus-not-enough-mitigate-climate-102332169–abc-news-topstories.html
40
3 Mar: Harvard Gazette: The real trade-offs attached to going green with nuclear energy
By Clea Simon, Harvard Correspondent
Must we go nuclear to go green? What will be the trade-offs — and the risks — if we do? These were the central questions Monday night, as former Secretary of Energy Ernest J. Moniz and former Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan B. Poneman ’78, J.D. ’84, discussed “Nuclear Energy: Climate and the Bomb” at an Institute of Politics Forum at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. In a wide-ranging conversation, moderated by Meghan O’Sullivan, Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, viability and safety as well as expedience and practicality were all on the table.
“We’ve had good news on the cost of renewable energy,” said O’Sullivan in her introduction. “But there’s a growing realization that the nature and the scope of the crisis demands more.”
Tackling the topic first, Moniz agreed. “Even in the four-plus years since [the global] Paris [Agreement on climate],” he said, “the challenge has been recognized as much greater” than was once thought. Growing evidence, he said, has shown that slowing carbon emissions will not suffice to halt climate change. “We see increasingly now it’s got to be net zero emissions,” which requires carbon removal as well.
Current renewable energy technology is simply not up to the task, both speakers agreed…
Poneman made the point more forcefully. “You can take all the wind and all the solar you want, and it’s not going to solve the problem,” he said. “We’ve got to get out of the zero-sum game where renewables push out nuclear.”…READ ON
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/03/the-trade-offs-attached-to-going-green-with-nuclear-energy/
20
Browsing through the (UK) Guardiasn for the latest on coronavirus I came across this
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/06/morrison-government-to-stop-funding-20m-international-collaboration-on-shift-to-zero-emissions
Don’t remember seeing this discussed here(but PAT might have done and I just missd it) but thought it might be of interest to Australian readers .
Also in the same issue an item indicating a move away from investment in wind and solar to obtain “100% renewables by 2035”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/28/angus-taylor-to-announce-shift-in-climate-investment-away-from-wind-and-solar
20
Oh dear I have been infected with the wellknown Guardian misspelling syndrome, Guardian not Guardiasn
30
Mike:
The Guardian has probably contributed more mis-spellings of its own name than anybody, so much so that it’s commonly known as the Grauniad. So don’t worry! 😀
30
mikewaite –
all that angst over Australian govt stopping funding in your first Guardian link, yet the article then states:
“The email said the department had noted in its reasoning that the German government ***had not continued funding for its side of the hub, which was for two and a half years. But it said the German institutes remained involved and were part of a separate upcoming major project funded by the government that was designed to advance the energy transition.”
lol.
40
Verbalism; a human induced avalanche of techy sounding words designed to create an appearance of reality and certainty. There’s no requirement that truth be involved at any point of the cascade.
KK
20
Always gets me that they keep talking about the “transition to renewable energy” as if its a real thing. Its demonstrably failed anywhere that isnt blessed with massive hydro resources, and then the more rabid fanboys wont count hydro anyway.
30
still haven’t seen any MSM on Matt Canavan/CSIRO or Gerard Rennick/BoM encounters.
Rennick reminder:
VIDEO: 6m30s: 1 Mar: Facebook: Senator Gerard Rennick: Senate Estimates – BOM
Today in Estimates I asked the Bureau of Meteorology if it agreed that the homogenisation of Australia’s mean temperature data has effectively increased the rate of warming by more than 50% since 1910. The BOM failed to answer this question.
I then asked the BOM to state its accepted margin of error or tolerance level for the original (raw) dataset. Again the BOM failed to answer the question, despite asking the same question more than three times.
Check out my media release on this here LINK
https://www.facebook.com/gerard.rennick/videos/2767664823311253/
a smug SBS/ex-ABC staffer and his equally smug followers, who don’t even know any of the details (Travers certainly isn’t providing any):
TWEET: Jamie Travers, Political Producer @SBSNews Previously @abccanberra
LNP Senator Gerard Rennick asking why the ABC relied on Bureau of Meteorology data in an article on climate change
2 Mar 2020
Followed by One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts who questions a tweet from ABC Chair Ita Buttrose which says “Australia is committing climate suicide”.
Asks for the scientific evidence she is basing it on, including the document, page number and empirical evidence
2 Mar 2020
CHECK THE REPLIES
https://twitter.com/JamieTravers/status/1234710975783174146
40
That session with BOM is amazing , would not answer the simple question of error margin just kept rattling on .
Something to hide ?
30
If the data error is say +/-0.5C on older measurements, how can “adjustments” (nearly always downwards on older data) much larger than this possibly be justified.
The whole issue of homogenisation is a anti-science farce anyway !
We have the likes of BOM criticising Craig Kelly for for not taking into account regional rainfall change differences, yet BOM what to destroy all the older temperature data so those differences don’t exist.
Rainfall effects temperature a lot in Australia,
… there is absolutely zero reason that temperature trends should be homogeneous.
40
Gerard was never answered on his original question. Another question he needs to ask relates to the calibration program for their electronic measurement devices. In the food industry you need to do this regularly, and I am betting the BOM never do it. If an error was found then the BOM need to introduce error bars on all the readings back to the last good calibration reading…
20
“and I am betting the BOM never do it”
They certainly don’t check to see if the sites they are using are actually compliant to their own standards. !
10
ABC factcheck refutes Craig Kelly that that the early 20th century was drier than the early years of 21st century. Long winded crap about climate indicators with some some schmaltzy terms from pseudo-experts.According to ABC, Kelly wrong;BoM correct. Bulltwang!
50
GlenM –
I’ve posted the FactCheck, but it’s in moderation.
am waiting for a video of Chris Kenny/Sky on the subject to be posted online.
30
can’t believe I just found tonight’s Chris Kenny on the Craig Kelly-ABC/RMIT FactCheck:
VIDEO: approx 6m: 6 Mar: Sky: Chris Kenny: Media, universities committed to “global warming alarmist narrative”
Many in the public sector and the media are so committed to their “global warming alarmist narrative” that they are ignoring empirical facts, according to Sky News host Chris Kenny.
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6138914734001
80
https://i.postimg.cc/h4C8GKXw/Australian-rainfall.jpg
Enough said. Trend is for INCREASING rainfall.
Clearly higher rainfall since around 1995.
30
ABC have gone full Orwell on the BoM issue. They accept BoM (and NOAA/NASA/etc) as Ministry of Climate Truth. You DO NOT question them. To question them is in itself proof of your guilt. Case closed
Paul Barry did the exact same thing a few weeks back on a climate special edition of media watch.
50
Another Ian posted a version of this on the “Thursday Open Thread” which may not be seen, given the new threads that are up.
but, because we often joke about the CAGW mob’s poor grasp of figures, and it involves “woke” MSNBC & NYT plus, indirectly, CAGW supremo, Michael Bloomberg, here’s another version:
VIDEO: 1m: 6 Mar: ConservativeTreehouse: You Are Not Going to Believe This Was Broadcast on MSNBC – But it Was…
by sundance
If you’ve ever wondered why it is impossible to have a conversation with modern liberals about politics, this video snippet is a case study in the answer.
MSNBC host Brian Williams and New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay are having a serious discussion about money, politics and Michael Bloomberg’s spending in the primary election. You have to watch it to believe it.
Think about how many people were involved in creating, preparing and producing what you are about to witness…
VIDEO
Apparently MSNBC, Brian Williams, New York Times Mara Gay, the producers of the show and countless others involved in the production are really, really bad at math…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/03/06/you-are-not-going-to-believe-this-was-broadcast-on-msnbc-but-it-was/
30
A similar situation exists in the UK with Scotland acting as Tasmania!
English consumers already stump up millions in constraint payments every year.
A recent FOI revealed 13.9 million trees had been felled for wind turbines in Scotland.
https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/354-a-decade-of-constraint-payments
50
As a Tasmanian, I approve this article.
Fact check: 100% True
And as I’ve been saying for a long time now to everyone I know, the biggest supporters of this leftist suicide economics and politicized non-science, are … drum roll … the LNP !!
Yes, brought to you by the Home Goal Party; the guys who say they aren’t the other guys, because they’re not, but are.
The NEM was a really, really bad idea, because it enabled states to paper over their planning and infrastructure stuff ups (and sell-outs) by relying on other states and of course a prayer that the wind wouldn’t stop in every state at the same time and the connectors would remain reliably connected (choke points).
In reality, Tassie should be the one state in Australia without energy problems if the hydro system was kept completely for state requirements, and even expanded – though the Greens are not only decrying hydro expansions but are now even decrying wind farm expansion down here; because of the birds.
Tasmania Checklist:
– No coal … at all
– No gas
– No more hydro
– No more wind farms
– Not much point in solar, it’s too darn cloudy most days anyway
. . . but wait, what about . . .
– Shallow virtue signalling for multi-decade unattainable goals
Yeah, that’ll keep the lights on.
We’re the one state that can actually make a case for some of our wind farms because we have lots of hydro plants to use as ‘batteries’ without even having to use pumped hydro, yet we can’t even get that right because the NEM makes state-to-state daisy-chain energy rorting and hydro capacity abuse so attractive – ENRON laughs from the grave.
Only an act of God can help us from this mass insanity.
90
Brilliant Jo, Brilliant.
The restoration cost of half a billion would be a large burden when shared by all taswegians, maybe two or three hundred each. It’s not that much really.
KK
30
came across this today. says everything about ABC types and their disdain for free speech.
from about 16 mins: the great Greta; The Conversaton banning “climate change deniers; conflicted feelings about “free speech”, etc:
AUDIO 28m27s: 23 Feb: ABC The Philosopher’s Zone: Is reason enough?
Presenter: David Rutledge
Critical thinking is often upheld as the cornerstone of civil society, and the search for truth seen as something requiring rationality first and foremost. But today, popular discourse in the political and online spheres suggests that critical thinking could be failing us – and we’re not sure why. Have too many people strayed from the path of reason? Or is reason insufficient – ever overrated – as an ingredient in the formation of good citizens?
Guests
Dr Laura D’Olimpio
Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Education, University of Birmingham UK
Matt Beard
Philosopher and Fellow at the Ethics Centre, Sydney
Tim Dean
Philosopher at large, Honorary Associate at The University of Sydney
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/is-reason-enough/11984392?utm_medium=spredfast&utm_source=tw_ABCReligion&utm_campaign=khoros&sf230453473=1
the guests:
Uni of Birmingham: Dr ***Laura D’Olimpio, School of Education, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Education
Prior to taking up this position in 2019, Laura was Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at The University of Notre Dame Australia.
Laura completed her PhD ‘The Moral Possibilities of Mass Art’ at The University of Western Australia. She is co-founder and co-editor of the open access Journal of Philosophy in Schools. She is also a regular contributor to The Conversation, Philosophy Now magazine, The Ethics Centre, and ABC Radio National’s Philosopher’s Zone and The Minefield. Laura’s first book, Media and Moral Education: a philosophy of critical engagement (London, Routledge, 2018) won the 2018 PESA (Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia) Annual Book Award.
Laura is currently working on her second book, The Necessity of Aesthetic Education: The Place of the Arts on the Curriculum, which is due to be published with Bloomsbury in 2020.
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/education/dolimpio-laura.aspx
FestivalOfDangerousIdeas: Sydney Town Hall: 3-5 Apr 2020
Ethics of the Apocalypse – Carl Smith, ***Matt Beard 5 April 2020
Join philosopher Matt Beard for an ethical choose-your-own-adventure exploration of the choices we’ll have to make under pressure in a world where resources are depleted and the stakes are higher than ever. You’ll also examine some of the ethical issues created by different world-ending scenarios. Will it be a global epidemic? A zombie apocalypse? Rising seas? Learn the science and live the ethics, as the audience decides what to do and why. Will the human race survive the ultimate disaster – and will it cost us our humanity? …
Carl Smith is a Walkley Award-winning science reporter and kids; presenter at ABC Radio National and ABC Science. He makes radio documentaries for RN’s science programs and co-presents the kids’ podcasts Short & Curly (ABC Audio Studios) and Pickle (WNYC + ABC Audio Studios). Carl has worked as a reporter for Behind the News, presented the ABC Education series Minibeast Heroes, and was an ABC News Cadet. In 2018 he explored apocalyptic events and how we might respond to them in a three-part series The Apocalypse on RN’s Science Friction.
Matt Beard
Matt Beard is a husband, dad, pop culture nerd, moral philosopher and ethicist. He is a fellow at the Ethics Centre and the resident philosopher for the ABC’s kid’s ethics podcast Short & Curly. Matt is a columnist with ABC Life and New Philosopher, and the author of The Short & Curly Guide to Life. In 2016 he won the Australasian Association of Philosophy prize for media engagement. He has repented of his past life as an academic and now regularly appears on television, radio, podcasts, online and in print.
https://festivalofdangerousideas.com/program/ethics-of-the-apocalypse/
School of Life Sydney: Dr ***Tim Dean
He has a Doctorate in philosophy from the University of New South Wales on the evolution of morality, and specialises in ethics, critical thinking, the philosophy of science and philosophy education. He is also an experienced science writer ***and was the Science & Technology Editor at The Conversation…
He also teaches philosophy, ethics and critical thinking to children through the Primary Ethics program and in high schools around Australia.
Tim has also edited award winning magazines such as Cosmos and Australian Life Scientist…
https://www.theschooloflife.com/sydney/about-us/faculty/tim-dean/
too amusing not to post:
***Tim Dean re-tweeted:
TWEET: jonathan jb webb, I’m the science editor for @ABCAustralia + @RadioNational. Ex @BBCNews science reporter. Lapsed neuroscientist. Adelaidean at large
CALLING ALL BUDDING SCIENCE JOURNOS
I’m extremely pleased to say that we are again seeking a Darren Osborne Cadet to join @ABCscience during 2020.
Details & applications: LINK
Background on Darren and the cadetship: LINK
30 Jan 2020
https://twitter.com/jjbw/status/1223043128124305408
10
If it’s MY ABC as they keep telling me then why can’t I make a comment on any of their stories on their website?????? If it’s mine then I have that right !!!!!!
80
200% renewable?.
Ok, then let’s install a whopping big diode on Basslink, so it can only flow northwards. 😉
60
That would solve that pesky nett importer issue, when you are claiming to be the “Battery of the Nation!”
40
You’d be doing the people of Tasmania a favor, because there’s no bigger victim from all of this NEM rorting than the little guy who pays the electricity bill.
Electricity prices here in Tasmania have skyrocketed up to SA levels, and in a state where our hydro was solid up until the NEM connection made all of this electron rorting possible.
As a Tasmanian, I’d vote Yes on a diode referendum, and I’d bet a lot of Tasmanian’s would too – the ones without their heads up their ___
30
as broadcast on ABC this week. it’s all gobbledygook to me. sounded like your life would be dominated by the car & its battery. there’s full audio. segment audio with transcript and, at bottom “EXPAND ALL TRANSCRIPTS”, which is the easiest to skim through. I point to the “tyre pollution” segment as well, which has some relevance because they say the weight of the batteries in EVs means it would be even worse than it is for petrol cars:
3 Mar: The Naked Scientists: Electric Cars: Worth the Charge?
Presented by Katie Haylor, Chris Smith
17:32 – Capturing tyre pollution
A student group have come up with a device for capturing bits of tyre as they come off vehicles…
27:41 – How electric car batteries work
What’s actually powering the average electric car?
32:49 – Vehicle to grid charging
How can your electric car support the national grid?
40:38 – Storing green energy
If electric cars are to be zero emissions, you need to be able to store the green energy used to power them…
47:24 – Paying for charge
How easy is it to pay to charge an electric car?
48:44 – Recycling EV batteries
How are we going to recycle the materials inside electric car batteries?
52:46 – Megan’s verdict on electric cars
Would you buy an electric car?…
EXPAND ALL TRANSCRIPTS
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/podcasts/naked-scientists-podcast/electric-cars-worth-charge
10
ABC’s Namila and guest wallow in the CAGW doom and gloom.
listen to first 1m30s for Namila’s despair and Lucia on the unpleasantness of being called climate hypocrites:
then listen from 13m15s: Namila: what advice would you have for other arts professionals or even professionals in other industries who are, you know, keen to raise these issues with their bosses in order to institute change in their own organisations?
Lucia: (with the obligatory “it’s a good question”)…I would say…(LISTEN):
AUDIO 15m02s: 4 Mar: ABC: The Art Show
with Namila Benson
The Serpentine Galleries in London have announced they are going green in 2020, committing to look at the environmental impact of everything they do as a gallery. We speak with the Curator of General Ecology at the Serpentine Galleries, Lucia Pietroiusti.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/the-art-show/the-serpentine-galleries-go-green/12023566
naturally, Lucia was at the following:
3 Mar: Artnet: 5 Meaningful Ways the Art World Can Help Fight Climate Change, According to Experts in the Field
At a conference in London last week, arts leaders gathered to discuss ways that the art world can become more sustainable.
by Naomi Rea
As we settle into a new decade, the art world is increasingly sounding the alarm on the climate emergency…
Organizations including Extinction Rebellion and individuals like Greta Thunberg have galvanized the sudden shift towards public awareness of climate-change science, and more and more people now recognize that we are on the precipice of an important historical moment. The actions we take over the next decade could be the key to avoiding climate disaster…
At a conference organized by the London-based charity Julie’s Bicycle last week, Chris Stark, the chief executive of the committee on climate change, the independent body that is advising the UK government on the task, emphasized that “every single sector has a job to do to get to net zero.”
This includes the arts…
At the conference, titled “We Make Tomorrow,” artists, activists, and institutional leaders gathered to discuss what the art world can do to mitigate or indeed reverse the detrimental effects of climate change.
“We realized that there was a tipping point, that we could no longer just attend to our own house,” Frances Morris, the director of Tate Modern, explained at the conference, referring to the ambitious sustainability plan that Tate announced last summer. The institution is now en route to net zero emissions by 2030.
“There was a moment when we had to offer some companionship, leadership, and understanding, and to create a context for the visual arts sector to begin to move forward,” she said…
Similarly, ***Lucia Pietroiusti, the curator of “general ecology” at the Serpentine Galleries, explained that she founded the initiative a few years ago as a way “to infect other art institutions with the ecological bug.” The program aims to model what an ecologically friendly institution could look like.
Here are five key insights from the conference into how arts institutions can tackle the climate crisis:
Start Collecting Data…ETC
Stage Environmentally Themed Exhibitions
Lucia Pietroiusti even suggests a radical redefinition of what constitutes an artwork.
Part of the ethos of the Serpentine’s General Ecology program is to expand the definition of art to include environmental campaigns.
“By calling something an artwork, you are allowing an institution to support it,” she explains, adding that this is just one of her “tricks” to allows arts institutions to support environmental projects…READ ON
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/climate-change-5-sustainability-tips-1791375
10
read while you can. don’t agree with everything he writes, but worthwhile, nonetheless:
7 Mar: Australian: Forget the UN, we need to do what’s best for Australia
by Chris Kenny
It is time to panic! We are all going to die. This is an emergency. Parliament needs to act. We need a war cabinet. The kids are frightened, they don’t want to go to school, and that is good, they are heroes, leading the way. If you stand in the way, you should be imprisoned. This is the end of life as we know it. The planet will never be the same.
Hold on to your toilet paper rolls, I am not talking about the coronavirus. The threat to which I refer is global warming.
These are the messages we get daily from green-left politicians, activists, publicly funded media, other journalists and a range of other institutions when it comes to climate change action. The hysteria and alarm, the retreat from rationalism and surrender to emotionalism, turn on its head all that we have learned as a fact-based civilisation since the Enlightenment…
It is not sensible to declare a catastrophe unless it is upon us. Promoting hysterical responses serves no purpose except to advance some vested political or commercial interests, when the response to a dilemma should be calm, methodical and fact-based…
Catastrophist approaches can only frighten people, create irrational reactions and distract us from practical and sensible actions; look no further than the climate debate to see how this has played out. The green left understands this when it comes to coronavirus but deliberately subverts it when it comes to climate…
We could, if we wanted to, take an extreme approach and cut ourselves off entirely from people movements around the world in response to a pandemic, but we can’t isolate our own air.
The green left pretends otherwise, pushing inane assertions that Australian climate policies might have played a role in our bushfire season — such tosh is neither challenged nor debunked by most of our media. Nor does the media bother to share with us revelations from climate scientists that the drought cannot be directly linked to climate change or that there is no climate science analysis to link current bushfire conditions to global warming (a fact conveniently buried by the CSIRO in its bushfire publications but prised into the public gaze by senator Matt Canavan in estimates hearings this week).
While media organisations pretend to give priority to facts and science, they fail to report that the fire conditions were not the worst the nation has seen or that the fires were not the worst we’ve seen — in fact they try to create the opposite impression…READ ON
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/forget-the-un-we-need-to-do-whats-best-for-australia/news-story/84c955b37b0b7ae710f0b0088275fe76
10