EVs twice as likely to kill pedestrians (and who knows how many cats, dogs, ducks and wombats?)

Pedestrian, car.

By Jo Nova

Saving the world with silent killers

A new study shows electric cars are twice as likely to hit pedestrians compared to petrol and diesel cars. Presumably this is because EVs are so quiet. Though it’s also possible the dash interfaces are hideous, and some menu options are more deadly and distracting than others. Or perhaps EV drivers are more stressed or feeling nauseous? The study didn’t investigate that.

Amazingly the data was from six to ten years ago in the UK, so countless people have died in the interim, and if it is just a noise issue, it could have been fixed, or at least investigated. Where is the precautionary principle when you need it?

And if electric cars are killing more people in cities, we would presume that Fido and Spot would be a part of the carnage too. But who would know what the car-pet-kill tally was? Well, manufacturers might — they own the camera footage, but no one is even asking that question. Animals have rights you know, but they don’t donate to Greenpeace.

The Greens are rushing headlong to roll out the auto-weather-saving-machines across the countryside, and they might be killing wallabies and spotted quolls too but who cares, right? It’s not like anyone has done that study, or the Greens are worried about flattening a few rare endangered animals on their road to redemption.

Apparently, it makes sense if a few extra people and pets die now to save someone else who might suffer in one hundred years, maybe, if the computer models are right, and if EVs  reduce emissions, and if emissions matter in the first place. All of which is unlikely. But rush, sprint, hurry to force those EVs onto the road. Even if they kidnap people, or kill children, it’s all for a good cause.

Electric Cars Twice As Likely To Hit Pedestrians, According to New Study

Scitech Daily

Study reveals a higher risk of accidents in urban areas across Great Britain from 2013 to 2017. Researchers call for measures to mitigate this risk as fossil-fuel vehicles are phased out.

A study has found that pedestrians are twice as likely to be hit by electric or hybrid vehicles compared to those powered by petrol or diesel. The research, which was published on May 21, 2024, in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, examined casualty rates in Great Britain from 2013 to 2017.

The risk is greater in urban areas, and governments must take steps to mitigate this safety hazard as they proceed to phase out fossil-fueled vehicles to improve air quality and curb climate change, urge the researchers.

Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young people, and 1 in 4 road traffic deaths are of pedestrians, they note. Amid the ongoing shift to electric and hybrid cars, concerns have been raised that these vehicles may pose more of a safety hazard to pedestrians than fossil-fuelled cars because they are quieter, particularly in urban areas where background ambient noise levels are higher.

the researchers calculate that between 2013 and 2017, the average annual casualty rates of pedestrians per 100 million miles of road travel were 5.16 for electric and hybrid vehicles and 2.40 for petrol and diesel vehicles.

Perhaps it’s really the fault of all those young inexperienced drivers?

And younger, less experienced drivers are more likely to be involved in a road traffic collision and are also more likely to own an electric car, possibly accounting for some of the observed heightened risk associated with these vehicles, they suggest.

Sure. These are the same careless teenagers who were “more likely” to splash $100 K on a Tesla Model S in 2016, right? What are these researchers thinking?

The only thing we know for sure is that the rush to force EVs on us has nothing to do with morality or compassion. It’s not about saving lives or protecting fluffy mammals. The Greens don’t care about those lives now, let alone the people of the future.


More tales from the EV files:


10 out of 10 based on 60 ratings


9 out of 10 based on 8 ratings

Nuclear versus Renewables: The only cost that matters is the one the customers pay

By Jo Nova

Games with levelized guesses don’t take all the hidden costs into account

Prize of the day for national policy research goes to Nick Cater, who managed to ridicule our billion dollar national science agency, the CSIRO, with a newspaper column.

The CSIRO put out a report proclaiming that nuclear power would be impossible before 2040 and cost “twice as much” as renewables. But Nick Cater just compared electricity in New South Wales to Finland to prove their 129 pages of modeled costs were wrong:

Finland’s clean, Green nuclear power a lesson for Labor

On Saturday….  Electricity generation in NSW was releasing 750g of carbon into the atmosphere per megawatt hour of electricity. In Finland, it was 35g.

If the CSIRO’s GenCost report is to be believed, Finnish electricity prices should have gone through the roof a year ago when its newest reactor was turned on. They did not. The retail price of electricity in Finland, which is indexed to the spot market, came down almost immediately.

Were Energy Minister Chris Bowen to spend a few days in Finland, he might realise almost everything he says about nuclear is complete and utter nonsense. This might be why he spent his time in Europe last year trying to sell green hydrogen to the Germans.

All over Europe the countries with the most solar and wind power have the highest prices

Modeling electricity costs is ripe for the plucking, so the only costs that count are the real ones that customers pay. According to Eurostat data on electricity prices  in the EU last year, some countries were paying twice as much as others. And the cheapest electricity was in countries using coal power or lands with lots of hydroelectricity and plenty of water.

European electricity prices households 2023. EU

And if nuclear power was “eight times” more expensive than solar and wind, why is that Germany pays so much more for electricity than France does?

Germany, Italy, Poland, and Greece are all pricey but none of them have nuclear plants (yet).

Serbia has cheap electricity and it is nearly 70% coal powered. Norway has cheap electricity and 100,000 natural Fjords for hydroelectricity.

Look who has solar power and expensive electricity:

Things aren’t working out well for Greece, Germany and Italy.


Look who has wind power too

Denmark has a lot of wind, but it also has seven interconnectors to countries with cheap reliable hydro and nuclear power. We don’t.

CSIRO artificially pumped up the cost of building a nuclear plant in Australia because it would be a new industry here. Did they do that for technologies that are barely invented like hydrogen and batteries too? They claim it would take 15 years to build one plant, yet the French built 56 plants in 15 years, and that was 40 years ago. The average build time then, without faxes, flip phones and “the internet” was just 7 years, yet somehow they got it done. Do the CSIRO think they can get away with publishing this kind of incompetent partisan hackery and Australians won’t find out?


9.9 out of 10 based on 92 ratings


8.4 out of 10 based on 12 ratings

Tell the world, the Dutch tractor protests and a War on Net Zero won

Dutch Netherlands Farmers Protest

By Jo Nova

Six months after Geert Wilders won the Dutch election he has finally negotiated an agreement with a few minor parties to form government and the unthinkable has happened. The centre-of-the-road conservatives (referred to as “far right extremists”) got elected to unwind the worst excesses of the totalitarian left. Henceforth, the forced farm reclamations will stop, mandated heat pumps are out, electric car subsidies are going and in a brave scientific move, no one will be culling livestock to change the weather. The Netherlands won’t have to pursue stronger environmental policies than the rest of the EU so their leaders can show off at cocktail parties and get jobs with the UN. The Netherlands will still be tied to crazy EU rules, but those elections are coming next month. And official government ministers are so much harder to ignore in EU negotiations. The landscape has changed.

The Telegraph in the UK gets the message: The Tories should go to war on Net Zero. This applies everywhere else too. Tony Abbott didn’t win a 90 seat landslide victory in Australia by trying to do half a carbon tax. He won because he said he would Axe the Tax. (And Stop the Boats.)

The political candidate who goes to war on Stupid Plans has the freedom to point out the all the stupidity. The weaker man with a halfway plan is still agreeing with the witchcraft, he’s just suggesting a different spell. No wonder it doesn’t sell.

To arrange the deal Wilders gave up the Prime Ministership (a win no doubt for the namecalling mud slingers), but he appears to be the one in charge nonetheless. We hope he gets his day…

h/t to NetZeroWatch

Dutch farmers force heat pumps about-turn

The Telegraph

The Netherlands will tear up rules forcing homeowners to buy heat pumps as part of a war on net zero by Geert Wilders and the Dutch farmers’ party.

Six months after his shock election victory, Mr Wilders this week struck an agreement to usher in a Right-wing coalition government of four parties. “We are writing history,” he said as he announced the programme for the new government.

The new coalition marks the first time that a party focused on the interests of the agricultural sector has got into power in the Netherlands. Earlier this year, mass farmers’ protests swept Europe.

The coalition pact includes pledges to reverse green policies introduced under the previous government to hit EU climate targets, including compulsory buyouts of polluting farms. It also plans to end subsidies for electric cars in 2025 and rejects an EU demand that the Dutch reduce livestock numbers to cut pollution.

The Tories should go to war on net zero excess

Editorial, The Telegraph

But now even Western countries are starting to turn against the worst excesses of the green movement. The new Dutch coalition has released its programme for government, and at the heart of it are a swathe of pro-consumer, pro-energy security policies, reversing some of the bizarre environmental schemes introduced by its predecessors.

Among them was a programme to compulsorily purchase farms to meet EU climate targets. The result was a farmers’ revolt and a new insurgent political party. The coalition agreement tears up rules forcing homeowners to buy heat pumps, and scraps an obligation that the Netherlands should pursue a “more ambitious environment policy” than the rest of Europe.

Young voters are shifting right and breaking “taboos”

Geert Wilders party did better among 18 – 35 year olds than among some older groups. If all ages matched the younger vote his party would have won four more seats.

At Politico writers are worried that trends like this, which are also seen in Portugul and France mean the “taboos against voting for populist anti-immigration parties is fading”. Which begs the question of who decided that was taboo in the first place?

Their biggest fear is that even young voters are breaking out of their educational pens. They paint this as a devious “far right” opportunity, instead of what it really is, the young rebelling against a lifetime of propaganda. The old jargon and namecalling formula to bully the workers into submission isn’t working any more.

Geert Wilders turned all corners of Dutch Society into far right voters

By Hanne Cokelaere and Eva Hartog,  Politico

Across Europe, far right parties are advancing with support from young — and first time — voters. Despite being one of the EU’s wealthiest countries, the Netherlands’ shortage of affordable housing has become a key concern. Amid rising prices, many have an increasingly cynical outlook on life. Unlike their parents and grandparents, this generation feels less restricted by party loyalties, making them more of a wild card and therefore an attractive pool of new voters for anti-establishment candidates.

“The older voter, who was still loyal, is dying; younger voters are going in all directions,” said Josse de Voogd, a Dutch researcher who has made electoral geography his specialty.

For far-right parties, that presents an opportunity.

Wilders’ success took many by surprise, but it is indicative of a broader trend: The taboo of voting for populist, anti-immigration parties is fading. In the June EU election, the European Parliament’s Identity and Democracy group is projected to reap the electoral benefits of increasingly broad support; also among young voters.

In Portugal, exit polls from the March election suggested that under-30s accounted for approximately 25 percent of those who voted for the far-right Chega party.

Young voters are looking for a strong leader and few men are as strong as Geert Wilders — the man who received countless death threats and lives under permanent guard, but keeps going.

It is easy to imagine the new Prime Minister (whoever that is) living in the shadow of the real leader, the man who takes risks.

9.9 out of 10 based on 114 ratings


8.6 out of 10 based on 8 ratings

Green left gets uneasy that Jeff Bezos is giving $10 billion to stop climate change — is that a “conflict of interest”?

Rain of Bezos Climate Money

By Jo Nova

Finally, the Green-left activists are starting to ask if Big Money is distorting their own environmental efforts

Twenty years too late, a few on the green patsy environmental side are starting to feel “uneasy” about the billions of dollars gifted into their accounts by the nice caring bankers and oligarchs. The money thrown at believers is so obscenely big even they are raising eyebrows.

After smearing skeptics as shills for Big Oil, a few on the left are wondering if funds 300 times larger just from one man might be a bit concentrated. The Bezos Earth Fund has $10,000 million dollars in total to give away but in the last three decades of climate debate the evil Exxon only gave skeptics a grand total of $30 million dollars. Now they worry?

They wonder if Jeff Bezos is controlling too much of the environmental charity funding, and that he really wants to set up carbon offset schemes which greens fear will be “greenwashed” corrupted and a waste of time. This is quite a rare hint that a few in the environmental circles are just starting to be suspicious that they are being used to support other money making agendas.

But this is a crack in the door for skeptics to wedge:

The Bezos Earth fund has pumped billions into climate and nature projects. So why are experts uneasy?

By Patrick Greenfield, The Guardian

Launched with a skeleton team in February 2020, the Bezos Earth Fund aims to give away $10bn (£7.9bn) of the Amazon founder’s $200bn personal fortune to combat the climate crisis and biodiversity loss by the end of the decade. So far, it has issued more than 230 grants worth $2bn, funding initiatives from AI environmental solutions to clean energy for disadvantaged communities.

In the process, the Bezos Earth Fund has become one of the most influential voices in the climate and biodiversity sector, with its fellows, advisers and directors a high-profile presence at international negotiations.


 Bezos Earth Fund logo. Climate Money

Now they worry about the conflict of interest?

But privately in the climate and biodiversity sector, the mood around the Bezos Earth Fund has turned to one of growing unease. Researchers, climate policy advisers and NGO staff voiced concerns about the level of influence the organisation holds over critical environmental institutions for halting climate change and biodiversity loss, many of which now count Bezos Earth Fund among their biggest funders. Some did not want to be named due to concerns about the consequences for their own funding.

“We have seen millions of dollars paid to conservation and climate organisations. So many have taken money from the Bezos Earth Fund and I find it really worrying. There is obviously a risk of a conflict of interest,” says Holger Hoffmann-Riem from the Swiss NGO Go for Impact. “The credibility of the system relies on independence.”

The system needs independence indeed, but where were they when science needed independence? They were in bed with the bankers and bureaucrats, demanding carbon credits to save the world.

The aim of the Big Banker class was always to establish a carbon fiat currency brokered by them. It was potentially a $7 Trillion dollar money making venture (for bankers). Wouldn’t you love to be paid to profit from an invisible product where no one needed delivery of anything, yet you could claim to be saving the world? The only “commodity” in this market are paper certificates issued by third world bureaucrats, and checked by people who want jobs with the UN or HSBC? (We all know what HSBC is looking for in an employee, and it isn’t “independence”. (Remember Stuart Kirk’s story?)

More signs that the Green left are starting to fragment

Does Jeff Bezos really want to save the world? Green gravy train troughers are afraid to ask out loud:

One climate policy expert, speaking on the condition of anonymity, says: “In the few years since it started distributing enormous amounts of money for climate change and conservation, Bezos Earth Fund has established influence over many major initiatives and their board members.

“At this point, Bezos Earth Fund’s enormous presence in the climate and conservation space starts to look less philanthropical, and more like an attempt to take over the corporate governance system for its own interests and agenda.”

Things are cracking up in the Carbonista cabal because the impossible Net Zero targets can only be met by buying carbon credits from countries who have a massive dirty emissions industry they can clean up cheaply or who can fake it. The true (delusional but more honest) Greens sense that there is something wrong with this international money market idea. After all, people close to home won’t have to give up their air conditioners and cars if they can just pay some slave in Malawi to do it for them. Hence there was a big dummy-spit when Bezos group was seen supporting “carbon offsets”:

Many in the conservation and climate world say their concerns crystallised this year, when a bitter internal row erupted at the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), one of the world’s most important climate certification organisations. The SBTi, which received an $18m grant from Bezos in 2021, is the organisation responsible for assessing whether some of the world’s leading companies are decarbonising in line with the Paris agreement.

In April, the SBTi board unexpectedly announced plans to allow companies to meet their climate targets with carbon offsets from the unregulated voluntary carbon market for indirect emissions. The move provoked internal fury. Staff and technical advisers said they were not consulted about the announcement and warned it could open the door to greenwashing.

They expressed fears that the science-based process was being sidelined in favour of more company-friendly policies with weaker standards, with large polluters allowed to buy offsets instead of cutting emissions. Dozens of SBTi staff called for the resignation of the CEO, Luiz Fernando do Amaral, and board members, including the Bezos fellow Iván Duque, in an internal letter.

But ponder this –a lot of the green-left-industrial complex don’t want a real free market in carbon either. The renewables industry wants a half-baked one to support them, but doesn’t want want a full open free market in carbon because the sell products that are expensively stupid ways to reduce CO2. So if there is anything resembling a free market in carbon credits, they might lose market share to all the cheaper options. When Australia had a carbon auction system small tree farms used to win the bidding at $14 a ton of carbon “saved”. While wind and solar power were costing hundreds of dollars a ton.  And electric vehicles are even worse.

So other big money guys who are using the greens have an interest in making sure the carbon market isn’t too free and only certain “low emissions” schemes can be accepted.

From the Bezos Fund site — obviously they don’t want a real free market, they want a rigged one, as long as they get to do the rigging, eh?

“The market economy can play a valuable role in shifting to a green future, but free markets alone can simply perpetuate past pollution and depletion. The Bezos Earth Fund is working to accelerate changes in goods and financial markets to create a virtuous cycle of investment, prosperity, jobs, innovation, emission reductions and ecosystem protection.”

But when you have $10 billion dollars to give away and Big Bankers for friends, what’s to say you can’t rig the market?

Related stories on Bankers in Climate Change


10 out of 10 based on 76 ratings


8.9 out of 10 based on 8 ratings


8.4 out of 10 based on 19 ratings


9.5 out of 10 based on 19 ratings

The EV car crash continues

By Jo Nova

Government plans to badger us into EV’s have hit a hurdle

Things are so bad in the world of electric cars that fields of the cars-of-the-future are appearing at ports in the EU. China has shipped 1.3 million EV’s there in the last quarter but they are piling up in car parks unsold. Countries within the EU are throwing money at customers to get them to buy EV’s, and companies are discounting too, but still it isn’t enough. EV sales fell by 11% across the EU and by 29% in Germany.

Across the Atlantic, something is going wrong in the USA too. The world’s top brand is renting space in shopping centres and airports in America to store the unsold cars.

Car dealers are warning they might not be able to sell many petrol cars, even when buyers walk in to buy them, because they can’t find  enough EV buyers so they can meet the mandated target ratio. We might be at the start of a buyer freeze…

Chinese EV’s are filling up EU ports

There are just extraordinary shots of cars lined up in EU ports:

By John Varga, The Express UK

Major EU ports are almost full to capacity with Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) that no one wants to buy. A slump in sales across Europe has caused parking lots at the Belgian ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge to fill up with the Chinese imports.

A spokesman for the Port of Antwerp-Bruges, the second largest in Europe, said: “This is what is happening in all European ports that handle large numbers of cars.”

And it’s a similar story in the US:

AU0:44 / 1:56 Hundreds of Tesla vehicles parked outside Chesterfield Mall. Why?

Watch it on Youtube

Unsold Teslas Pile-Up In Mall Parking-Lots, Big Discounts Likely

Mike Shedlock, Mishtalk, via ZeroHedge

Please consider Tesla’s Storing Unsold Inventory In An Abandoned Mall Parking Lot

Parking lots full of Tesla vehicles are becoming impossible to ignore as the electric automaker seemingly can’t sell enough cars and trucks to match its rate of production. According to its own figures, the electric automaker produced 46,561 more vehicles than it delivered to customers during the first quarter of 2024. Where are all these cars going? Parking lots at its factories, malls and airports.


Drivers warned of petrol car shortages as net zero to ‘choke off’ supply

By Matt Oliver, The Telegraph

Car salesmen face a shortage of petrol vehicles under Rishi Sunak’s net zero crackdown, one of Britain’s biggest dealership chains has warned.

Vertu Motors said sales of electric cars had “stalled” in the UK, raising the risk that manufacturers will miss sales targets mandated by law. Under the zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate, 22pc of carmakers’ sales must be electric this year with the target rising annually until it reaches 80pc in 2030.

But with manufacturers risking fines of £15,000 per car for breaching the rules, Vertu warned that many might simply throttle supplies of petrol and diesel cars to artificially boost their compliance.

EV Sales crash graph.

EV Sales UK Telegraph

Australia copies the UK and US “emissions standards” just as EV sales fall

With uncanny timing the Australian government has adopted the same rigged ratio of EV sales that isn’t working in the UK or the US, and they’ve done it the same week car magazines here are just starting to ask “Is the honeymoon over for electric vehicles in Australia?”

Australia is years behind the EV bubbles of Europe and America because we are the last rich nation on Earth that anyone would want to buy an EV in. We’re sparsely populated and 5,000 kilometers wide. Half the continent doesn’t have high voltage line within 100 kilometers of the road let alone a fast charger.

As luck would have it, sales for EVs in Australia were barely starting to take off, but EV sales declined in April for the first time since EV’s became “a thing”. It’s only a 5% slip, but it’s the trend, the trend…

h/t to Kim, CO2 Lover


9.7 out of 10 based on 112 ratings


8.9 out of 10 based on 16 ratings

Professor says we can stop emissions with a pandemic that kills billions

By Jo Nova

Death cult at nine

Let’s just say, hypothetically, that someone wanted an excuse to reduce global population, or limit competing tribes and religions, there’s a scientific hat for that. Climate Change is the ultimate excuse for mass death — done in the nicest possible way and for the most honorable of reasons. But isn’t that what they all say: Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, Heavens Gate —  death makes the world a better place?

The cult that pretends it isn’t a cult sells itself as “science”. I mean, what is the worst thing you can think of? Would that be one degree of warming, or the Black Death?

In Bill McQuire’s mind the catastrophe is not when billions of innocent people die.

One hundred years from now, what would our great grandchildren prefer: that the world was slightly cooler or they were never born at all? If you hate humans it’s a terrible dilemma…

Bill McGuire, vulcanologist, accidentally put his primal instincts in a tweet last weekend:

Culling for the climate. Thirty years of telling us that humans are bad has consequences. As Elon Musk said” They want a holocaust for humanity.” It turns out a televised diet of one-sided climate projection by mendicant B-Grade witchdoctors might be a dangerous thing for mental health. If only Bill McQuire had seen a skeptic on TV?

Predictably the McGuire tweet spread far, and got crushing replies so the Emeritus Professor deleted it, as all cowards do, yelling at us:

McGuire, deleted. tweet.

To which the winning reply was:

McGuire kept digging, declaring that “ I DID NOT SAY ‘WE NEED A PANDEMIC..’” only of course, he did say we need emissions reduction and that a pandemic was the only realistic way to do that. He told us he was being brutally honest after all. “I COULD HAVE SAID SOCIETY-BUSTING ASTEROID IMPACT INSTEAD OF PANDEMIC” he lamented, like that was so much better.

So spread the word, academia has become a cult. Don’t let children go there unprotected.

Remember once a mind is infected with Climate Change, bioweapons are just another kind of carbon credit.

The problem is not the Climate Cult itself, it’s the censorship that feeds the sickness…

h/t Old Ozzie, Another Ian, El Gordo

9.8 out of 10 based on 102 ratings


9.5 out of 10 based on 22 ratings

Solar power at midday is so useless, they plan to start charging homeowners for generating it

By Jo Nova

The glut in solar power in Australia is so big that next year solar panel owners in Sydney will have to pay 1.2c a kilowatt hour to offload their unwanted energy between 10am and 3pm. Nearly a million homes in Sydney have solar panels, but only 7% of them have batteries, which means basically, thousands of homes installed hi-tech generators that aren’t very useful. Worse, other homes were forced to pay part of the costs for them. The only winner was China.

Finally, a tiny part of the strangled free market is re-asserting itself, which might slow down future installations, or trick a few people into installing a $9,000 battery. Naturally this unpredictable rule change will hurt the poorest solar owners, but benefit those wealthy enough to afford a battery.

Solar panel owners slugged by Ausgrid for generating too much power

by Caitlin Fitzsimmons, Sydney Morning Herald

The biggest electricity distributor on the east coast plans to charge households with solar panels to export their electricity to the grid during the middle of the day.

Ausgrid will impose a penalty of 1.2¢ a kilowatt-hour for any electricity exported to the grid between 10am and 3pm above a free threshold that varies by month. During peak demand times, between 4pm and 9pm, Ausgrid would pay 2.3¢ an hour as a reward to customers exporting solar to the grid.

The tariff will be charged by Ausgrid and the retailer will decide how to package it. It is opt-in from July this year, and mandatory from July next year.

The Sydney Morning Herald naturally thinks this is backwards and unfair, and in a sense it is, homeowners were led up the garden path. No one was given realistic information before they purchased another useless panel. But where was The Sydney Morning Herald? — it was selling the garden path. If they interviewed a few skeptics they could have told the hapless homeowners that the forced transition was artificial, unmanageable, and the conditions were doomed to be “adjusted” sooner or later.

Solar power at noon is electrical sewage

The wholesale market was trying to send the message. Negative spot prices show that solar is essentially a waste product at lunchtime which needs to be disposed off, a bit like electrical sewage.

Negative spot revenues didn’t really occur until we installed the last two million solar panels that we didn’t need. It is obviously a growing problem now, which suspiciously peaks in spring and summer and falls in winter months –matching the solar output profile by month.

Negative prices on the australian grid. Graph.


You might wonder why any generator would keep generating during a glut so bad they had to pay for every watt they generated. But it’s logical in a screwed market — the negative prices are close to the value of the “Renewable Energy Certificates” the government forces us all to pay to solar and wind operators.  So solar owners can produce a product the market essentially doesn’t want, but the government forces us to pay to make it profitable. See how this works?

The point of a free market is that stupid ideas are supposed to be free to lose their own money. That’s a signal to stop doing it.

And if there was some use for solar power at midday, negative prices would have found it. If there was an AI supercomputer that needed to sleep 18 hours a day and only work at lunchtime, the owners would have been beating down the door to get paid to use that solar juice. It didn’t happen.

Here’s the solar power contribution to the NSW grid this month.

Australian electricity Grid, solar power NSW. May 2024.



During the solar spikes, hundreds of tons of exquisitely tuned infrastructure that could have kept running, just sits around and waits in case a cloud rolls over. And efficiency gained by solar is lost by the rest of the system.

h/t David of Cooyal in Oz



9.9 out of 10 based on 98 ratings


10 out of 10 based on 10 ratings

Russia discovers oil and gas reserves in Antarctica — ten times bigger than North Sea

 HMS Portland comes face to face with the remarkable size of the Nordenskjold Glacier in South Georgia and local wildlife. Antarctica

While no one was paying attention, a Russian ship exploring Antarctica claims it has found oil and gas deposits that are ten times larger than the North Sea. Presumably quite a lot of countries would find this very interesting. At the moment Antarctica is supposedly protected by a piece of paper, but those who want to keep something so valuable to themselves will be needing more than cellulose.

It could take some fossil fuels to protect these fossil fuels

Hard to see any nation keeping control of this oil and gas field using sailing boats, solar powered ships and missiles running on palm oil.

Russia finds vast oil and gas reserves in British Antarctic territory

Johnathon Leake, Telegraph

Russia has found vast oil and gas reserves in the Antarctic, much of it in areas claimed by the UK.

The surveys are a prelude to bringing in drilling rigs to exploit the pristine region for fossil fuels, MPs have warned.

Reserves totalling 511bn barrels of oil – about 10 times the North Sea’s entire 50-year output – have been reported to Moscow by Russian research ships, according to evidence given to the Commons Environment Audit Committee (EAC) last week.

It follows a series of surveys by the Alexander Karpinsky vessel, operated by Rosgeo – the Russian agency charged with finding mineral reserves for commercial exploitation.

The total extracted from the North sea up until 2014 was about 42 billion barrels of “oil equivalent”.  Green fanatics would be horrified to think of all the emissions that might be unleashed, but 3 billion cold people in China, Russia, India and Japan might have a different view.

It’s hard to believe no one has staked a claim on Marie Byrd Land. We’re they just too busy to attend the meeting?

Antarctica, territorial claims
Russia claims that its boat was just doing scientific research (just like those Japanese whalers were).

At least a part of the UK government apparently found out about this when a South African newspaper published a story on it. (Who needs intelligence when you can read the Daily Maverick?)

The EAC [Environment Audit Committee] decided to challenge the Foreign Office’s management of the UK’s Antarctic interests following reports in the Daily Maverick, a South African online journal, which discovered Moscow’s activities after its survey ship docked in Cape Town.

The British government has officially said they believe the Russians, but a few in the British government are skeptical. (From the Daily Maverick)

[Anna McMorrin, a Labour MP on the polar audit sub-committee] asked FCDO Under-Secretary David Rutley…  if he was “aware” of the Rosgeo vessels, under US sanctions since February, and how the UK was to respond at the annual Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting (ATCM) in India from May 20 to 30.

The under-secretary defended Russia’s “repeated assurances” at ATCMs “that these activities are for scientific purposes”.

A sceptical McMorrin asked Rutley if he was “content to believe Russia when they say they’re just undertaking scientific action”. The Labour MP also quoted expert testimony to the committee, stressing that leading polar geopolitician Professor Klaus Dodds had flagged the “current Russian activity” and its possible “prospecting” links as “troubling”.

“There is a worry that Russia is collecting seismic data that could be construed to be prospecting rather than scientific research. And, if such, does this signal a potential threat to the permanent ban on mining,” asked Dodds, of Royal Holloway, University of London, “with knock-on implications for the integrity of the protocol in its entirety?”

Suddenly people might start paying attention to Antarctica.

hat tip to @TomNelson and @NetZeroWatch


For the record, the  dispute between the UK and Argentina goes back a long way.

Photo: LA(Phot) Ian Simpson  of the HMS Portland in South Georgia in 2010 on Wikimedia



10 out of 10 based on 81 ratings


9.1 out of 10 based on 12 ratings

There just might be 74 million reasons environmental charities ignore eagles and whales, and reject zero emission nuclear

Corruption, graft, grift, money laundering cartoon.

By Jo Nova

Renewable billionaires would be crazy if they weren’t funding “Environmental Activists”

Nick Cater points out one mysterious charity, the Sunrise Project Australia had a “revenue” of $73.8 million* dollars last year and we don’t know where that came from.

Let’s say you made a fortune from Big-Government subsidies and rigged market rules — what would stop you pouring some of those parasitic profits right back into fake environmentalists groups to help “your favourite” politicians win? It has the added bonus that when your wind turbines chop up eagles or deafen the dolphins no one says a word. The same sell-out environmental groups would .. do nothing at all. Mum’s the word! Which is exactly what Greenpeace and the WWF seem to do — nothing.

Let’s just say hypothetically, that you ran a company completely dependent on politicians to create rigged market rules — like banning your main competitor? (Nuclear power). What would stop you funneling some of those profits into environmental cover groups to whip up “grassroots” whinges into a fully mature political campaign with digital databases and social media tracking?

And conveniently for them, as Nick Cater points out, the Australian Electoral Commission doesn’t classify environmental charities as “political” even though the Greens are a party. That means the chumpy tree-huggers who don’t mind chopping down trees for some kinds of industries — don’t have to declare their donors. How convenient?

And so the positive feedback loop would roll on year after year — the more the market was rigged, the more the parasites could pay.

And the more it would appear our wilderness groups are industry fronts and our politicians serve someone else:


The Australian Newspaper

Surely this is the most powerful interest group we’ve ever seen?

Nick Cater, The Australian

If WWF had accepted money from a mining billionaire, fossil fuel company or tobacco manufacturer, the woke media would have been on to it in a flash.

Australian registered environmental charities receive hundreds of millions in revenue each year. This tax-advantaged honey pot is fuelling the rapid expansion of ecological activism and lawfare, making it nearly impossible to open a new coalmine or drill for gas. As for nuclear, forget it.

…we are left with only the vaguest impression of who is bankrolling the anti-nuclear cause by channelling funds through charities such as the ACF…


WWF received funds last year from the European Climate Foundation, one of Europe’s biggest bankrollers of climate activism. Other organisations, such as the Queensland Conservation Council, receive money from the Sunrise Foundation, which originated in the US and is now registered as a charity in Australia. Sunrise Australia’s income last year was an astounding $73.8m. The source of those funds is a mystery.

The activity of a group called Environmental Leadership Australia illustrates how this works. ELA, a registered charity based in Paddington, NSW, reported an income of $4.2m last year and handed out $1.5m in grants and donations. ELA has spawned a host of other charities, including Farmers for Climate Action, Veterinarians for Climate Action and Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action.

Yet the renewable industry investors need Albanese to win. Lifting the ban on nuclear would send their portfolios into meltdown. Wind and solar generators would no longer be protected from competition from a form of technology that is not only carbon-free but actually works.


Nick Cater is senior fellow of the Menzies Research Centre and a columnist with The Australian. He is a former editor of The Weekend Australian and a former deputy editor of The Sunday Telegraph. He is author of The Lucky Culture published by Harper Collins.


Imagine you were President Xi wanting to sell more slave made solar panels to Australia, to sabotage their grid and force companies to move to China so you could steal their IP and get them dependent on your supply lines? What stops that money filtering through a chain of philanthropists and into saboteurs hands? The ABC?

Image by Gordon Johnson


  • “Billion” corrected to million. Apologies. – Jo
9.9 out of 10 based on 108 ratings


9.2 out of 10 based on 10 ratings