The Clean Energy Council is an industry group promoting renewables. Not surprisingly it defines “success” as being the amount of money it has diverted from other causes into the coffers of its members. Good for them. They are free to lobby. But the RET or “renewable energy target” was set up by the government. They dictated rules to generate a false market in a product that few sane investors would invest in (remember how the same government keeps talking about how we need a “free market”?).
You and I might define success in terms of more peaceful, healthier and longer lives. Or lives where we get to spend more time with our kids and less time in a rat race. Ultimately, this is $18 billion in investments that could have been used to build houses, hospitals, medical research centres and schools. A visionary government could have made it easier for markets in Australia to develop safer, more effective vaccines, or better and earlier cancer detection, or crops with better yields, and higher essential vitamins and minerals. Total NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Funding in Australia) is in the order of $800 million per year. $18 billion could have doubled our research budget for a decade. We missed the chance to lead the world in medical research, instead we might reduce world temperature by 0.00C.
Somewhere during the next decade good people will languish in hospitals who could have been treated. They might wait for an organ donation that may or may not come in time, while an expert researcher waits for funding to follow up an idea for regenerating that same tissue from stem cells. Who knows. The patients might not be in Australia. That’s the thing about medical discoveries. When you can reduce pain and suffering, there’s a market all over the world for your exports.
Renewable energy target succeeding: report
AUSTRALIA’S renewable energy target (RET) has driven $18.5 billion of investment in clean power and eroded wholesale energy prices since it was introduced a decade ago, a new report suggests.
In the black-is-white, up-is-down world of spin where being forced to use more expensive sources makes it cheaper to buy electricity.
The Clean Energy Council analysis released on Thursday finds wholesale prices are as much as $10 per megawatt hour lower as a result of the RET being in place since 2001.
The Clean Energy Council explains how spending more can be called a “reduction in prices”. Note the details. They “found” the RET reduced prices, but in the reasoning, the word is not “did” but “could”, the calculations come from models, and they are not sure why it would have reduced prices, but they can scratch together a few possible reasons. Of course, there is no mention I can see of total money paid by householders for electricity including taxes needed to pump the RET. It’s a 112 page report. The only tax it discusses is the tax benefits for investors in the government subsidized scheme.
Impact on electricity markets
Analysis shows that to date the RET scheme has had an impact on wholesale prices in most
regions. Without the RET, most regions would have experienced higher wholesale energy prices
than have been experienced with the RET. This is most evident in South Australia where a greater
proportion of renewable energy has been deployed. Modelling indicates that an average reduction in
wholesale prices of $4/MWh, with a maximum price reduction exceeding $10/MWh, could have
occurred on the wholesale market in South Australia as a result of the RET scheme.Retail prices have decreased slightly as a result of the RET with the average change since inception estimated to be -$0.63/MWh to -$4.41/MWh. The costs of purchasing certificates have averaged around $0.06/MWh in 2001 to $3.13/MWh in 2012. These costs partly outweigh the decreases in
wholesale price, but overall a slight reduction in prices has occurred.It is difficult to isolate a single driver for the reduction in wholesale prices with it likely to be attributable to a combination of factors. These could include:
- Reducing electricity demand – The uptake of solar water heaters and small scale roof top PV systems contributes to the reduction in electricity demand by displacing the need for grid based electricity.
- Reduced gas demand – to the extent that large scale renewable energy generation has reduced gas-fired generation (typically the last plant dispatched in the system). Uptake of solar water heaters may have also reduced the demand for gas for residential use.
- Spreading the location of generation to a greater range of regions, in some cases improving the efficiency of use of transmission systems and reducing system losses.
If Australia wants to be the clever country and not a quarry, we need the cost benefit study before the policy.
This is another instance where ‘climate science’ and climate fantasy merge into one.
Facts are distorted/tortured beyond all recognition to produce ‘authoritive’ results, so one group of overpaid inept bureaucrats can report to other group of overpaid inept bureaucrats, who in turn report to their gullible political masters, that the Renewables Policy is working well.
You don’t have to be the Brain of Australia to realise the following atatement is just weasel words intended to divert attention away from the real reason – if indeed it has occurred – for the decline in some regional wholesale electricity prices. The fortunes wasted on renewable energy grants and subsidies is one of the greatest scandals of our time – why invest (except for isolated businesses or communities) in renewable energy if it is so blatantly unreliable and so many times more expensive than the conventional alternatives?
“It is difficult to isolate a single driver for the reduction in wholesale prices with it likely to be attributable to a combination of factors. These could include”
280
I think it’s a push towards (back to?) more national and international socialism?
10
I suppose they got equally excited when the Productivity Commission reported that in 2010 before Australia had even introduced a Carbon Tax our various CO2 emission abatement programmes were costing on average $44 – $99/tonne of CO2 emissions abated in relation to electricity generation. It was a whopping $364 per tonne of CO2 abated in respect to Bio-fuels. Last year the Productivity Commission reported the average solar PV subsidy costs were between $432 – $1,043 per tonne though I understand this was quietly downgraded earlier this year to $177 – $497 per tonne of CO2 abated. But none of these figures took into account the $23/per tonne being levies on EVERY tonne of CO2 equivalent emitted from those companies which now come under the new Carbon Tax regulations which include all major electricity generating companies.
These massive abatement costs compare to the current price of carbon credits in Europe of just 8 Euros or $9.98 per ton.
Clearly we must be doing something terribly wrong and not allowing the ‘free market’ to operate if through Government subsidy schemes it’s costing anywhere between $44 and $1,043 to abate one tone of CO2 emissions, whereas we could purchase one ton of carbon credit in Europe for just $9.98 on the free market if the Australian Government allowed us to do so.
140
The same Productivity Commission advised the Government to remove all market distorting schemes when introducing a price on CO2. Not sure why they bother to advise this government to be honest, as they don’t follow the advice.
140
One fiction is built on top of another.
120
Here in America, I wish every US voter knew about The CAGW zealots in control there in Oz; the policies (travesties) that have been intrenched in the Aussie government. It is a cautionary tale. There, but for one election, goes the USA.
170
California is pretty much already there. The mania is rolling along full speed ahead.
70
Ahh yes California is really something to aspire to !
Gillard’s California dreaming
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_california_dreaming/
Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis: Why Is California Broke?
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-is-california-broke.html
Gillard looks to China and bankrupt California for inspiration
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_looks_to_china_and_bankrupt_california_for_inspiration/
40
I attended a Regionalism meeting with a Brookings Institution speaker, Bruce Katz, a few weeks ago. I delberately went to listen to what was being said in 2012 knowing he had chaired the original Regional Equity Conference in the US in 1998. Having had a bit of a name change to Metropolitanism, it was a pure Mercantile coordinate and plan with the government, built around Green Energy, export global economy.
Over and over again we find that the primary excuse for the renewable mandate or as Katz called it “Low Carbon Technology” is the desire to have a centrally planned economy that benefits cronies. The Age of Individualism and the consumer being in charge are supposed to be over. And education, K-12 and higher ed, and the corrupting influence of grants on what gets advocated for, are the implementation weapons.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/protected-producers-vs-paying-consumerstaxpayerswho-will-prevail-on-education-and-the-economy/ is where I wrote it up.
I know Australia also has the same Regional pushes tied into Agenda 21 coming out of the UN. And the Student Wellbeing initiative is all about altering student values to defer to the group consensus and the declared Common Good.
180
In case Australians are not aware of it, the gillard government is planning to hold a referendum with the next federal election to alter the Australian Constitution to recognize the authority of local councils. ( at present local councils cannot make their own laws and by-laws)
Most Australian local councils are members of ICLEI an arm of the United Nations Agenda 21.
If this referendum passes ( it has been rejected by the public in a previous referendum) who do you think will be dictating the laws and by-laws of the local councils, Australia-wide, in future? ICLEI as per the Agenda 21 program,that’s who.
Are we to become a colony of the U.N.?
Simon Crean to offload councils referendum promise
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/simon-crean-to-offload-councils-referendum-promise/story-fn59niix-1226496663001
Constitutional recognition for councils: a better governed Australia
http://theconversation.edu.au/constitutional-recognition-for-councils-a-better-governed-australia-10184
“The Greens will not allow local government recognition to fall off the agenda” ( Well they wouldn’t, would they!)
http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/labor%E2%80%99s-weak-kneed-approach-council-referendum-fails-local-communities
NOW READ THE FOLLOWING LINKS:
Why does your council desperately want recognition in the constitution ?
http://larryhannigan.com/councils_and_the_constitution.htm
The validity of local council by-laws.
http://www.larryhannigan.com/validbylaws.htm
Local councils- referendum 1988 ( rejected )
http://www.larryhannigan.com/councilpowers.htm
(What we are signed up to.)
INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/austral/inst.htm
Cooperation
Australia supported the establishment of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development and has been a member of the Commission since its inception. Australia’s commitment to the principles of Agenda 21 is also reflected in the appointment of an Ambassador for the Environment. Australia has consistently supported an expanded role for NGO participation throughout the UNCED process. This commitment has been reinforced by having NGO representatives on Australian delegations to all sessions of the CSD.
Australia funds key international institutions involved in promoting multilateral solutions to environmental problems. Among these organisations are United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), International Maritime Organisation (IMO), United Nations Education and Scientific Cooperation Organisation (UNESCO), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and the twenty-two international agricultural research centres, including the sixteen centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
Since 1992, Australia has undertaken a range of substantial measures to integrate and promote the principles of sustainable development throughout the development cooperation program. The policy basis for the development program is contained in the document, “Towards a Sustainable Future.” This policy focuses on the key themes contained in Agenda 21, namely; the economic and social dimensions of development, the conservation and management of resources for development, and strengthening the role of major groups. In particular the policy basis is targeted towards sustainable development priorities in the Asia-Pacific region. The environmental expenditure component of Australia’s aid program increased from A$ 120 million in 1992 to over A$ 160 million in 1995.
50
The diversion of our tax dollars, by way of the Carbon Fear Agenda, to essentially private hands is a story
that needs to be broadcast loud and wide for all to hear.
KK 🙂
160
KK, you can now see why MT was trying to get up the ETS (Enrich Turnbull’s Savings) when he and KRudd were still in ‘power’.
100
This is O/T but very important.
The new Briffa study completely wrecks the hockey stick fraud. Surprise, surprise.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#more-73211
All the biased data and manipulation that has driven this imaginary , delusional nonsense for years should now come to an end.
Of course this was generously and endlessly promoted by Gore, Hansen and the clueless IPCC and siezed on by fanatics all over the globe.
The graph at 5c says it all, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about late 20th century warming at all.
130
But global warming is so passe, now. Everybody, and I mean everybody, knows that the world is no longer warming. We are all into climate change now. It is much more chic, don’t you think?
70
Don’t mention all the inconvenient real scientific findings that keep popping up in the face of UNFCCC policy based “science”?
They have invested in lots of programs and agenda’s.
So they keep their mouth shut and hope that these will roll all the way on their inertia?
00
Rereke ,
Climate change is soooo 2011 . Anybody who`s anybody is calling it climate disruption now . That way the occurrence of ANY weather events at all can be claimed to be caused by Human CO2.
00
Neville says: “The new Briffa study completely wrecks the hockey stick fraud. Surprise, surprise.”
==============================================
Rats leaving a sinking ship…
http://ddsrail.tripod.com/ratsracing.gif
50
I wouldn`t be so quick to judge Briffa . In some of the climategate emails it reads like even though the data doesn`t support the theory that He believes He wants to publish it unfiddled anyway but gets overuled . Plus there are some theories out there that , on the tenuous information available hold water , that suggest Briffa was the source of the leaked emails . IF , and I do mean IF , that`s true that puts an entirely different light on His actions.
Of course it could just be He`s a bit smarter than the rest of the bugs on the highway and He`s noticed the oncoming windshield . Regardless , it`s going to be fun finding out
00
Right, I should have used “?” instead of “…”.
On the other hand, they use “!!!!!!!” efficiently, so…
00
It seems the Orwellian named Climate Change Authority has reached a decision:
October 26, 2012 –
“In its first major release since being set up in July, Australia’s Climate Change Authority has rejected calls by some of the country’s biggest energy companies to scale back the national 20 per cent renewable energy target, saying it should be left largely untouched.”
•
In other news, Stephan Lewandowsky from the Cognitive Science Laboratories at the University of Western Australia is back:
“People are more likely to believe that humans cause global warming if they are told that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that it does, a new study has found.”
These climate rebels are a conspiracy I tells ya!
100
Thanks Handjive
A propos Professor Lew’s latest contribution to pseudo-scientific progress, 300 Perth pedestrians surely can’t be wrong?
“In the first [study], 200 Perth pedestrians were asked about their views on the scientific research linking human CO2 emissions to climate change as well as their thoughts on medical research linking smoking to lung cancer and HIV to AIDS.
The results showed that people who had faith in scientific or medical research in general were more likely to accept expert opinion on climate change.
“So some people just accept science as an endeavour and it doesn’t matter whether is the science is about climate or something else,” said Prof Lewandowsky.
The second study involved surveying 100 Perth pedestrians — half in a control group and half in a ‘consensus group’.”
00
The reason why the price of electricity is forced to come down is because there is already a constant supply of electricity available in the spot market from fossil-fuelled generators, then from time to time the wind farms drop some in there as well, thus creating an intermittent oversupply which of course forces the price down. This means it is hard for fossil-fuelled generators to do their job as they aren’t getting much for their electricity when this occurs, although they are not allowed to just let the retailers have nothing and just rely on wind and solar, because that destabilises the grid.
In addition, the $18 billion is only what is spent on wind farms and solar panels, most of this money is spent off-shore (possibly > 80%) acquiring componentry. However, the debt and ongoing profits for the owners will eventually be sourced from Australian electricity users. This is the zero sum game we are operating in at the present where the truth is a finite and rare commodity, and propaganda it appears is the operating standard of the day.
80
In almost every case of a rooftop solar system that doesn’t break down early (how many of those will there be), the profit to the owners through the early feed-in tariff schemes will be far above that needed for any form of commercially produced electricity. Reverse Robin Hood policy.
102
Part of the bribe for people to put PV solar onto their roof is the issuing of “Renewable Energy Certificates” (REC) based on the notional averted generation of electricity over 15 years. Each certificate is equivalent to 1 MWh of electricity and the total number of certificates is based on location and the projected PV generation over 15 years. http://ret.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Solar-Panels/solar-panels
AFAICT, there is no (certified) metering or compliance checking for most small “generators” to verify that those implied contracts are being satisfied on a pro rata or annual basis. They are deemed to be operating correctly by virtue of sanctified installation. Nor are buyers made aware of the potential liability if they don’t install and maintain their PV solar systems at a performance level necessary to satisfy their contracted generating obligations.
It looks purely like slush-funding for the PV solar industry.
vis http://www.energymatters.com.au/carbon-trading/recs/index.php
As a side-note, the Act under which all of this happens says:
Emphasis mine.
The liable generators are required to obtain electricity from renewable sources, represented by RECs which the liable generators purchase. If the RECs aren’t backed up by actual, corresponding, trackable PV generation, then the process is no more than a sham. Regardless of the “legality” of the process.
70
But in every tonne of propaganda sand, there has to be at least one diamond of truth, to make it work. The trick is finding the diamond.
40
Hi RW,
Consider the witch craze of the 1600s, many were killed – but was there a genuine, spell casting witch amongst them?
A propaganda campaign can be lies from start to finish – it just has to be believable by the target audience – no single diamond of truth is required.
Consider the concept of the “Big Lie” which is predicated on the idea that normal people are unable to imagine that anyone could intentionally tell a lie so big and evil that it is becomes – beyond questioning.
20
Ah, the 17th century period of witch warming – I remember it well – such happy days.
But what we don’t know is whether any of those witches had discovered that a certain mould would stop infections, or that the bark of the willow tree would cure headaches, or that chewing a raw onion might ease a sore throat. But given the number of witches burned, there is a strong statistical likelihood that there was, at least one, genuine, spell casting witch amongst them.
Psychologically, people need a hook to anchor whatever they see or hear, and that hook has to be something they already accept as the truth. Propaganda needs to find that hook, so it needs that truth to be viable. It also needs another truth that it can relate to the hook through a series of associations that form the propaganda message.
In simple terms, The hook is true. The fact is true. And the fact is related to the hook by a whole raft of plausible lies.
Of course, once the lies are believed, they can then form their own surrogate hook, but you still need a new fact to link further propaganda on to.
If you don’t have that fact, then the propaganda “dangles” and gives entirely the wrong message. Think of the “blowing up children” movie. It was related to school life at one end, but the message was not linked to anything real at the other end. Whoops.
10
Actually, it was the 17th Century – I was getting behind myself.
[Fixed – Fly]
00
I see what you are saying.
Cheers ExWarmist
00
In the ‘Mercury’ I believe I saw a report about King Island in the Bass Strait being a great place for wind power. This is true since it is about 40’S in the ‘roaring forties’ as sailors used to say. The hope is to feed electricity into the grid that supplies Victoria along with hydro power.
What happens if the wind drops? Well, the plan is to have a huge battery to provide electricity for half an hour; 30 minutes. After that, presumably no power will be sent from the wind farm. Oh well, you can’t have it all.
20
The biggest factor in reducing energy demand comes from the declining manufacturing sector due to GFC, high aussie dollar and high energy costs. A contributing factor of higher energy costs is energy suppliers forwarding the cost of compulsory RECs that subsidise the solar and wind schemes. So in this way, yes RETs have played a part in reducing demand by doing their bit to put manufacturers out of business. Well done! Oh, and that loss of tax receipts therefore makes the $18m much higher.
100
The Liberal Party is a GUILTY as the alp (Australian LIARS Party) in their support for the global warming FRAUD !
Australians demand a CHOICE about whether to support this BS or not !
It seems like there is only either One Nation or the Protectionist Party.
Liberal/Labor/greens are traitors to their fellow Australians and support criminal fraud !
51
There are many sceptics in the Libs and they are against the Carbon Tax. Still far from perfect, but no way near as bad as the ALP or Greens.
Might I add, the PM during the time the RET was introduced, John Howard, is now a sceptic so therefore not as bad.
00
What does the Clean Energy Council ‘get up to’?
From a pdf link at the bottom of this page, titled; “What we’ve been up to”:
❝
As a result of Renewable Energy Target (RET) legislation being passed last year, a review is required every two years, the first of which will begin in July.
In light of the uncertainty the review will create for the industry, the CEC has worked to tighten up its terms of reference through the Clean Energy Future package.
As a result, the RET review will now only consider refinements to the scheme i.e. it can’t result in the RET being removed.
❞
Evil is the word: adjective –
profoundly immoral and malevolent
(Before they change it in the dictionary.)
●
The CEC also links to lying propaganda sites like this:
Is this the beginning of the end of coal-fired generation?
But reality is…
Europe is burning more coal, while demand for gas – which emits much less CO2 than coal – is declining:
☆ Bonus link via notrickszone:
Solar Industry Meltdown – Intersolar China 2012 Tradeshow CANCELLED Due To “Difficult Market Conditions”!
●
Unfortunately for Australia, choice against government climate fraud is not an option at next election:
Opposition resources spokesman Ian Macfarlane last night told parliament the Coalition would not oppose the establishment of ARENA, which is designed to streamline and centralise more than $3 billion in commonwealth support for the renewable energy sector.
30
Nice one Rereke! Great word is ‘chic’. Brought a Monday afternoon smile – rare these days.
‘Climate change’ does possess a certain je ne sais quoi. ‘Global warming’ is far too crass.
Now, how long does the elephant in the room, the Babylonian arrogance, remain invisible?
I suspect it may take a generation before the-save-the-planet-brigade chant with fevour, beating the drums with their empty wallets (mainly to try and keep warm):
C’est vraiment des conneries!
50
Imbiciles ne changent jamais
20
This is such a parallel with Key Performance Indicators.
Upper managers will twist and distort the truth in order to fit their KPI’s. How many times can you recall news headlines like, such & such a company looses $X million dollars, but the CEO gets a $Y million dollar bonus because he met the KPI’s.
Smoke & Mirrors. Bait & Switch. Lies and Statistics. Politics.
There is already such a rich language surrounding such practices.
It is such an old problem;
Ecclesiastesor 1:9 “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”
50
“$10 per megawatt hour lower as a result of the RET”
Is this “lower” a new and improved Macquarie Dictionary interpretation?
60
Renewable energy such as solar and wind is an affectation of a wealthy society. They are vanity projects creating heavily disguised perpetual motion machines. After all if they created more energy than it took to create and maintain them why on earth would they need subsidies.
But what if Australia became less wealthy? Consider Greece – at the moment it is threatened with having its fossil fuel supplies cut off as it has not paid the bills. Do they spend what money they have on subsidies to wind and solar or do they try and keep the power on. Sitting in the dark and having all the food in the fridge/freezer defrosting and rotting is a large step towards anarchy.
What if Australia succeeds? If wind and solar create 10-15% of the total grid the rapid variability in their output destabilises the whole grid. Consider Germany – they have already had a brief blackout. Only a fraction of a second but enough to seriously damage control equipment in factories. German industry is now faced with the choice of installing expensive fossil fueled backup generators or exporting production abroad. As renewable energy increases then the possibility grows of a power outage which would cause damage to the infrastructure of the grid – leading to prolongued blackouts, possibly weeks. Sitting in the dark and having all the food in the fridge/freezer defrosting and rotting is a large step towards anarchy.
One cant help thinking that the economies of Europe would be in a far better position if so much had not been wasted on ‘renewables’. As the European economies fail the factories producing these goodies must be grateful there is another set of suckers to buy their wares [plus those factories in China].
Still, I am sure some people will make good money from these schemes – while the economy lasts.
41
Also interesting to note there are places in Germany that have just had 15cm of snow (so far) that have never had snow in October in the past three hundred years.
One wonders how long it takes to bring a mothballed nuclear power station back online.
91
memoryvault says: “Also interesting to note there are places in Germany that have just had 15cm of snow (so far) that have never had snow in October in the past three hundred years.”
===============================================
German public TV has already explained that: the reason was the ice melt in Arctic. Un*******believable!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtTdjxqHTqs&feature=player_detailpage (2:04) Sorry, the video is in German.
40
Those German presenters are about the same standard as our ABC- no technical understanding, politically biased and lap up anything green biased commentators (like the discredited Latif who either has forgotten (maybe deliberately) or has no understanding of science) say. Wow! warm results in cold -what great understanding is that.
80
Latif has more opinions than pairs of socks. And changes them even more frequently.
00
“Also interesting to note there are places in Germany that have just had 15cm of snow (so far) that have never had snow in October in the past three hundred years.”
Is this true? Google comes up with a lot of fluff pieces about early snow but no references similar to the above. Media loves stories like this so I’m surprised I can’t find any headlines at Spiegel etc saying “earliest snow for 300 years”.
111
Try watching the video MattB, FFS! That is not white rice bubbles that that guy is pulling off his windscreen. Or does the evidence of your eyes not hold as much weight as Google these days?
If you want to know how the media manage to hoodwink “the people” into believing any old shit, look no further than Matt’s comment. We have become so complacent and stultified that unless some paid vacuous mouthpiece in a suit doesn’t tell us what to think, or Google doesn’t have it in the first 5 “popular” responses (as dictated by Google for purposes known only to themselves), then we are too lazy to find out for ourselves.
111
FFS Winston – is everyone here taking the paranoia pills or what?
i) I can’t access youtube at work
ii) I don’t doubt it is cold.
iii) I can’t find any sort fo reference that this cold event is anything of the than one that results in fluff pieces at the end of a news forecast rather than a 1 in 300 year event.
29
Fair enough MattB, I apologise unreservedly if that’s the case, I didn’t intend to be so terse. It does however upset me when otherwise intelligent people are totally beholden to the media to spoon feed them everything- it is the unreliability of said media that I am more annoyed at, not you. You are right to be skeptical, no which way it slices, so I hope you can forgive my abruptness.
40
“Winston”, requesting this troll “MattB” to actually watch the video is like asking a monkey to perform mathematics.
40
Angry
That’s being very unfair to the monkey.
I’m sure they are smart enough to know when its hot or cold, unlike warmers or should that be colders.
Now I realise that the above is just a nonsense, but it sort of runs parallel with the new “Science
Lite” that we have infesting our society at the moment.
Orstralia has become a scientific laughingstock.
KK 🙂
10
Yeah, right.
That’s why all the headlines screamed “Record Antarctic Sea Ice Extent”, a couple of weeks ago.
Tell me MattB, what are the differences between these two statements:
1) – Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt, and
2) – Record Antarctic Sea Ice Extent.
Let me help:
a) – The first supports and promotes global warming hysteria, the second does not.
Therefore:
b) – The first is a perfect example of “climate change”, the second is merely “weather”.
Therefore:
c) – The first was screamed from every print and online paper and TV station and the second hardly cracked a mention with the MSM.
.
There are plenty of stories about the snow in Germany in October, but they are all in German! The German MSM HAVE to report it because Germans are shovelling snow at a time of year when they have never had to do it before. In other words, they were likely to notice.
But there’s no way other language MSM outside of central Europe are going to let on about it. Heavens, that could lead to an INFORMED public, and that would never do.
.
Similarly, it snowed last week in places in Australia where it has NEVER snowed before within our record keeping period, not even during the snow season. Yes, the Australian MSM reported it, because they HAD to – Aussies were shovelling snow who had never to at any time of the year, and they noticed.
But there’s no way the story was ever going to get any mileage with the MSM anywhere else.
Didn’t fit the global warming meme, you see.
101
I can’t find anything on Spiegel? Or do they censor the english version?
19
Matt…. it took me less than 10 seconds to find this link I would have thought that even YOU could do a little work!!!
30
Thanks OSI. Can’t seem to translate that at work so will do so at home. Much appreciated. Bugger knows why nothing like that showed up for me – is there a trick to picking up sites in other languages? Or do I need to do the search in German? “Coldern Recorden en Deutschland!”
02
Doesn’t take much longer to figure out that three-quarters of the train traffic will come to a stop after the coal-fired power station providing 75% of the electricity for the rail network in the region is shut down at the end of December, as required by the German government.
In mid-winter, there is typically little wind; especially when it is very cold. i.e. there will be no wind power. And it will probably be very cold in France and the Czech Republic at the same time… so little to no electricity to export to Germany; except at a very high price.
00
About six months, unless you want to fast-track all the tests and inspections.
70
.
So it’s unlikely that the Germans can access that source of power before mid-winter.
Interesting.
70
I want you to ask yourself an important question.
Let’s pretend for a minute we actually believe that the emissions of CO2 are indeed causing the climate to change catastrophically, and we know the largest emitters are those large scale coal fired power plants, so they are the first, and the biggest target, so they need to be closed down.
The question is this. What are they to be replaced with?
Let’s take a bundle of money, say $1.4 Billion.
What will we get for that.
SOLAR POWER
For that $1.4 Billion, well, you’ll get ONE large scale concentrating solar plant. It will have the facility to divert heat to keep the molten compound at the high temperature needed to make steam to drive the turbine that drives the generator. Because it has this heat diversion capability, this plant can only generate 50MW on a long term basis after the Sun has set. There may be days that plant can actually generate the full 50MW for a full 24 hours , but on a year round basis, that average will be only 15 hours a day at best. Now, keep in mind here I have mentioned 50MW because currently the largest plant that they have that actually has gone that full 24 hours can only supply 17MW.
So, you’ll get 50MW on a 15 hour basis for that $1.4 Billion.
This plant will last for around 25 years best case scenario.
WIND
You’ll get ONE large scale wind plant. It will have around 75 huge towers, each topped with a 3MW Nacelle, so the total power will be 225 MW. However, these can only produce variable power, and here let’s go with the theoretical best case scenario that averaged over a year will give a Capacity Factor of 38% (while the current average is barely around 30%) and that beat case 38% translates to a daily average of power for just 9 hours, some days more, some days less.
A large scale wind plant of this nature has a life span of 25 years best case scenario, and even that’s a dream that may not be achieved.
Bayswater generates 2640MW, has already been doing that for almost 30 years and has a contract to supply out to the mid 2020’s, a likely life span up to and in excess of 50 years.
Back to the question.
How many of these plants will you need just to replace that ONE Bayswater.
For the Solar plants, you’ll need 53 of them just to equal Nameplate, and for an equal power supplied, 73 of them, and then for lifetime, double those figures, so in today’s dollars, and for power delivered that comes in at $204 Billion. They need to start construction now and work flat out for the next, well, decades really.
For Wind plants, you’ll need 12 of these plants (900 towers) to equal Nameplate or 33 of them (2500 towers) to equal power delivered, and then double that for lifetime figures. For power delivered, that comes in $93 Billion. (that’s for those 5,000 towers. Easy to say isn’t it) They’ll need to start construction now, and work flat out, well, for decades really.
All of this just to replace ONE Bayswater.
The Government has already driven investment totalling $18.5 Billion. Compared to what is needed, this $18.5 Billion is an absolute pittance.
Remember, this is just for ONE Bayswater. There’s around seven of those large scale coal fired plants across Australia.
Also, keep in mind that while this solar plant can provide its power on an average 15 hour basis, and the wind plant on an average 9 hour basis, Australia currently REQUIRES ABSOLUTELY around 18,000MW on a dedicated 24 hour basis every day of the year. Not 15 hours. Not 9 hours, but the full 24 hours of every day.
Ever get the feeling you’re being conned?
Tony.
260
Very good analysis Tony. And, yes, I do feel conned,
Robert
60
I was waiting for you to turn up TonyOZ.
The RET is inherently corrupt because renewables don’t work on a sustained basis; this is not just the difference between installed capacity and capacity factor but the the minute to minute intermittancy.
This intermittancy means literally from minute to minute there is no reliability of electricity supply from solar or wind.
In respect of solar even the AGW infested CSIRO has recognised this intermittancy.
In respect of wind Quirk’s work shows that the claims for capacity factor is defeated by the lack of reliability for the claimed capacity factor occuring at any one time; see Table 1, Reliability Point.
70
Tony – at risk of asking you for a source, and noting that I agree with your point here, do you have a source for $1.4b goving only 50MW. I’d have thought that would give you at least 200MW? doesn’t effect your argument of course.
510
No problems Matt, fair comment, as I know now you don’t believe a word I say.
Listen. tell you what. You obviously know better than I do, so rather than give you links you don’t believe, or that you’ve proven not to read before, your information is obviously better than mine, so you do your own research. You go and find out for yourself and then get back to us.
You might save a couple of hundred million but hey, when you’re talking so many plants what’s the difference in a minor percentage savings when the overall cost is $204 Billion, and that’s billion with a B.
These plants will (theoretically) generate 50MW.
50MW.
Run the Eastern Sea Board on that Matt.
With a dedicated 18000MW needed 24/7/365 you do the math, and all that for barely 15 hours a day, when it’s required for 24 of those hours in every day, but hey, perhaps Macquarie Dictionary might come to your aid here and redefine the word day.
50MW.
Do your owned damned research. I have been for more than 4 years now, and all this crap about the prices coming down is an absolute joke, because in more than 4 years the cost has only gone in one direction.
Abengoa Solana at Gila Bend in Arizona, (280MW) is still not constructed after being proposed back in, well, before I even started, and it began at $750 Million, and has had 4 cost changes, and now stands at $1.65 Billion, and the Government has already sunk hundreds of millions into that already.
Cape Wind (454MW) proposed for Nantucket Sound before the turn of the Century started out at $600 Million, still is not off the ground, (or water in this case) and it has had five cost changes and now stands at, who bloody knows, and is now mooted to probably cost $2.5 Billion+.
Hope I haven’t got a spelling mistake here Matt, or maybe made a mistake in comprehension that you will pounce on, misconstrue and use to change the subject.
You know so much, so Matt, you tell us.
That’s 50MW Matt.
Go on, link me into the Spanish plant that can currently manage 17MW. That’s the renewables pride and joy so far, and it managed 24 hours once.
I even give best case scenarios, and as of yet, none have even come close to those theoretical maximums.
Knock yourself out.
Tony.
160
Look Tony – what’s a misunderstanding caused by poor wording from yourself between friends.
Thanks for the response, can I poke you further on the following statement:
“Cape Wind (454MW) proposed for Nantucket Sound before the turn of the Century started out at $600 Million, still is not off the ground, (or water in this case) and it has had five cost changes and now stands at, who bloody knows, and is now mooted to probably cost $2.5 Billion+.”
even if we were talking $2.5b for 454MW, so say for your $1.4b that’s 250MW give or take a few… what are the technical reasons that it would be 50MW max even if storing some away for later (I wrote this after my response at #17.3.2.1 btw.
NOte: I’m not some know it all looking for a slip up on which to pounce… these are genuine questions from someone who is interested.
18
MattB,
You really can’t comprehend can you. Look, I’m sorry to harp on this, but you seem to want to concentrate on English comprehension rather than read, and then (attempt to) put two and two together.
You say here:
Perhaps here the title may give it away. One is Cape WIND, and the other is Concentrating Solar.
Tony.
100
ha ha I did miss that – I read it as the second of two solar examples “Abengoa Solana” and “Cape Wind”. For all I know there ia a place called “cape wind” that happens to be quite sunny.
05
MattB,
now, again, I know this is probably an English comprehension point you will latch onto in your gotcha mode, but you may note I mentioned Concentrating solar ….. and then added that this plant has heat diversion capabilities.
As you undoubtedly know, Concentrating Solar Plants can be around 250MW. As you also undoubtedly know, that if if that plant has heat diversion capability, it can only generate 50MW. The heat is diverted instead of being used all the time for the full 250MW. But then, you knew that.
Without heat diversion then that 250MW plant can run for around 5 to 8 hours a day. However, with heat diversion it can only generate 50MW. All that is shown at this following link.
CO2 Emissions – Concentrating Solar Power – The (Failed) Saviour
There’s a graph to show why, and I have also included a very careful explanation of why it is like that.
Had you read the original, you would have noted I was careful to actually say just that, concentrating solar ….. with heat diversion capability. (no error there)
Tony.
110
Tony I shall forgive your patronising response to my honest question… again…
I must admit it had not occured to me that to save energy for later meant sacrificing production “now”. I figured they’d save for later without sacrificng capacity. Why is it limited to 50MW?
“But then, you knew that.”
No no I really didn’t. I bet many others here didn’t either and are glad someone is happy to ask toe dumb questions for them:)
08
MattB,
Judas Priest, for heaven’s sake go and read the link. That’s your failing. You ask us to provide links and then don’t even bother to go and read them.
By the way, that 50MW is still theoretical, and that Spanish plant at 17MW is still the best they can find.
50MW is theory still, and there is train of thought that they may not be able to double that in even the next 10 years.
Tony.
90
Matt,
When you think about it, all genuine questions are either dumb, because you don’t know the answer, or arrogant because you do.
In philosophical mood to day, I am.
70
your linked graph is for the Andasol plant, which is quite twee. It shows 50MW so why would some future plant be limited to 50MW? Unfortunately linking to your own blog with the same words is not particularly helpful.
15
Mattb;
That plant in Spain is naturally located in the most favourable area they have; almost as close to the equator as they can go, on a dry plateau, with high (for Europe) sunshine hours per year.
The sun only delivers maximum power when it is nearly overhead, i.e. about 5 hours. At other times the angle of the sun’s rays leads to losses due to atmospheric absorption & scattering. You also have to factor in the problems of clouds and haze.
What this means is that the capacity of the plant is roughly 50MW for 5 hours (i.e. 250 MWh) plus around two thirds of that from the remaining 7 hours of sunshine (in summer), say 350 -400 MWh for a hot summer day. They can either start generating very little power at 7-8 a.m. and increasing amounts until about 10.30 when they could reach the full capacity of 50MW per hour. After, say 3.30 pm. the output starts falling down to nothing just short of sunset.
If they divert some of the heat to storage for use at night, this cuts their output during the day. Take that 350-400 MWh figure above and spread it over 24 hours and you see that the output per hour drops to the 17 MWh figure Tony said.
In winter time the sunlight hours are much less and the output drops quite a lot.
For your information the cost of electricity from the plant is quoted at $205-210 per MWh (v $40 for coal, $65 for gas, $115-140 for wind), and the capital cost at roughly $305 million (which is slightly higher per MW capacity than the figure quoted by Tony for the as yet unbuilt plant in the USA) .
100
MattB.
Cape Wind???? How could you mistake that for solar, and hey, I even mention in brackets …..(or water in this case)
And hey, 9 taps of the keyboard in any search engine and Cape Wind comes up, and at the facing page with all references, it says ….. wind plant.
We provide links and you don’t take them, and then you don’t even go and look for yourself.
Why should we bother.
As an aside, this could be misconstrued as you deliberately burying the thrust of the post in “hey look over there, isn’t that Britney Spears” and Matt, that’s a serious observation on my part.
If I was to say one plus one equals two, you’d ask for a reference, and then not even bother to take it.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that you are doing this on purpose.
Tony.
90
MattB,
class act.
So now you infer I’m making it all up.
Go ahead Matt, prove me wrong.
Tony.
90
Tony – my 1st post said I agreed with you, and posed a question that I state “doesn’t effect your argument of course”. I’m not pointing to Brittany Spears, just asking a question.
06
Re your query Andrasol plant size:
Theoretically it is only necessary to increase the area of the collectors, but it depends on the type of concentrating solar plant.
A solar tower plant is limited in capacity because as the collecting area (mirrors) gets bigger, the angle of reflection becomes less optimal, and the longer path to the top of the tower means more atmospheric loss. Don’t forget that as you concentrate more power on the target you heat the air around it too, so air currents cause losses.
A ‘flat’ mirror system such as parabolic or fresnel mirrors could be extended but the thermal losses increase as the distance that the hot fluid has to travel increases (even without leaks etc.).
The figure often quoted for solar power of 1 kW per sq. metre at midday gives a theoretical 1MW per sq. kilometre (i.e. 1k by 1k). But you have to allow for access to the units for maintenance etc. and avoiding losses from overlap, so usually 50% of the area isn’t productive. Then there is the efficiency of conversion to electricity, which is quite low. So the output can be 11-13% of the theoretical. So for 1MW you need 12 sq. kilometres, and for 18,000MW you need 216,000 sq. kilometres. But that will only be enough for midday in summer, so to allow for heat storage you need to boost that by around 5 times. Plus add in the land taken by the power cables etc.
70
“When you think about it, all genuine questions are either dumb, because you don’t know the answer, or arrogant because you do.”
Rereke, I’d prefer to consider that all genuine questions are either smart, because you know you don’t know the answer, or humble, because you know that the answer you know may be wrong.
52
Play it straight matty or get called out as a troll; that is just BS; my dog knows you can’t use it and save it at the same time.
I always find TonyOz very conservative in pointing out the nuts and bolts of why renewables won’t work. It’s really down to the difference between installed capacity and capacity factor and the insurmountable obstacle of intermittancy.
That 50MW capacity factor that TonyOz quotes is an averaged amount; at any one time the Quirk statistic comes into play; which is the probability that the capacity factor will occur at any one moment is very low.
Table 1 and the 90% reliability point from the Quirk paper shows that the capacity factor output only has a very low chance of occuring at any one time; for instance, Cullerin Range has an installed capacity factor of 30MW, a capacity factor of 34% or 10.2MW; but the probability of that 10.2MW occuring at any one time to a 90% certainty is 3%.
In other words it is useless.
20
Yeah, just look at the graphs for yesterday, Sunday 28Oct 2012 for the most recently constructed 27 Wind plants in Eastern and Southern Australia.
Wind performance 28Oct2012
It’s the second graph down. This is the total output from all of those 27 Wind Plants, totalling 2072MW in Nameplate Capacity.
Note that from 9.30AM until 4.30PM it dropped below 100MW, and in fact stumbled along the bottom at around 60MW falling as low as 40MW. The average for that 7 hour period is 80MW which is a Capacity Factor of 3.8%.
That’s from a nameplate Capacity of 2072MW, the equivalent of ONE large scale coal fired plant.
It’s virtually nothing in fact it’s actually worse than nothing because other plants not tasked to run during that time now have to run up and supply the power not coming from these almost 1000 Towers in all. So, of those 1000 towers probably as few as 35 or 40 of them were running and for a two hour period barely 20 of those 1000 were actually spinning and making power.
Now that I’ve highlighted that, scroll down a little on that same page and you’ll see the power actually being consumed in that same area, 25,000MW, so during that time Wind was supplying 0.24% of the power required, and keep in mind this is for a Sunday, when the power consumption is considerably less than for a working day.
That’s 0.24%.
Consider the monumental outlay in dollar terms for those 27 Wind Plants, and all you get is this.
Wow, I am impressed. This definitely is the way of the future.
During that 7 hour period all 27 Wind Plants delivered 560MWH.
Bayswater supplied that same 560MWH in just under 12 minutes and 45 seconds.
Tony.
50
What is the EROEI of the separate pathways?
I would not be surprised if the windpower and solar solutions are (with current technology) net energy sinks – rather than sources.
Especially once whole of life costs and backup power systems are taken into account.
20
I think you are a little optimistic on the capabilities of solar, on a foul winters day in Melbourne a 5kW system will generate about 350watts of power, not quite enough to keep you toasty warm is it?
10
Today, some clown on Farcebook tried to tell people that South Australia was running on 100% wind/solar electricity. Of course, not even the total, installed nameplate capacity of the two sources is enough to fill peak demand.
I attached a link to the AEMO report which tells the story of 26% in total produced by wind and SFA produced by PV. Not the full story… so I also asked how they’d fare if they shut down their “burners” and disconnected from the Eastern States grid.
00
Slightly OT but following on from handjive @9 we have following words of “wisdom” from another Aussie academic
Will J Grant from the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University said it was an interesting and useful study.
“We can say people are convinced by the consensus but the big caveat is sceptics and climate change sceptics in particular are never going to be convinced by this,” he said. “They will say science doesn’t work by vote, it’s about facts.”
“Realistically, though, most of those sceptics are of an older generation. We are never going to convince them but they will be disappearing from the political discourse soon.”
I think you say that type of comment is called “scraping the bottom of the barrel”
140
“We are never going to convince them but they will be disappearing from the political discourse soon.””
By the time us “oldies” are no longer cognisant, maybe, just maybe, some of these ill-educated morons will have actually found some small part of their brain that can think for itself. !!
I reckon I have a good 30-40 years left in me, anyway :-). You are going to have a long wait, puppy-brain !!
70
I felt so ticked off about all this stuff that I just went out and turned on my front porch light in protest
and it’s going to stay on all night as a booomer cry for justice from the government who should free us from
the shackles of the UN and Global Warming hysterier.
KK
And Yes.
The spelling mistake is deliberate.
Another protest.
10
I heard the other day that one of the 20 year olds from the University Of WA said to his grandfather, “Granddad, all this talk about the World and the Global warming is bullsh*t”. So he next generation to Will Grant doesn’t believe him.
50
I can assure you that many engineering and science students don’t believe in it either.
The bastions of belief are in the arts / philosphy area..
30
Ross, this concept of right-thinking (in both senses) oldies dying off and not troubling the Lefties at the next poll is not new, and I seem to recall a MP saying something similar not long back. Nasty but typical! That being said, I don’t think that some of the (few, thankfully) appallingly reactionary posters on this blog (You are who you think you are, maties!) are in any way representative of my boomer generation or our parents’. There are a few people here I’d gladly cross the street to get away from!
By that I mean, it’s upsetting to see a small fringe group conflating rational climate skepticism, which is a mainstream belief, with wacky ideas about overthrowing the whole basis on which our society functions.
00
Hi Chris
“the whole basis on which our society functions.”
IS our society functioning sustainably?
It has been living on borrowed time, or more to the point, the accumulated effort put into this country by many older people.
I for one am NOT going to go quietly while I see all that I have put into this country “wasted” (stolen, misappropriated) by shifties.
KK
20
I agree entirely KK, that our cherished way of life, which our generation but probably moreso our parents’ generation has nurtured, is in danger of being destroyed by unethical wielders of power. The remarkable thing though is that despite this threat, the system seems to have substantial inbuilt resilience is still functioning reasonably well, overall.
So at this stage I am hopeful that things can be brought back onto an even keel. It would help a lot if the major parties selected their parliamentary candidates solely on the basis of merit, including a record of honesty and integrity!
Yes we do need to protest, but from the commonsense middle ground, not the margins. Any whiff of fanaticism is a turnoff to the politically disengaged, and to sensible people in general.
Btw I respect your views and certainly don’t include you amongst those I criticized in my first post.
10
Thanks Chris.
As Winston Churchill, once was quoted as saying: Democracy is the worst possible system to use to try and organise a society; except for all the others.
An important guiding message I can relate to.
Have been closely involved with Communism in one of it’s better manifestations, but it absolutely
denies the right to justice whereas we here at least have the theoretical right to have our grievances
dealt with.
In practice it is very hard getting relief from wrongdoing.
Looking for solutions so can understand some of the frustration that shows up here at times.
KK 🙂
00
WOW! Who’d a thunk a referendum could be so dangerous.
Maybe you’d like to answer the question put to you in this thread.
00
Here’s some green jobs making money already:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/world/15240774/co2-group-lifts-full-year-profit-by-237pc/
I like the quote:
I think that’s code for “if Tony gets in we are scr3wed.”
110
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Australian Bureau of Statistics in its Consumer Price Index 6401.0 for Melbourne demonstrates that in the period June 2007 to June 2012 the CPI index for all groups is up 14%, while the electricity component is up 84%, followed by a further 18.1% increase in the September 2012 quarter following the introduction of the carbon tax on July 1. And the RET will continue to drive up electricity prices as subsidies continue, paid for by electricity consumers.
80
This is OT but very interesting regarding the global warming alarmist Michael Mann.
Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann (global warming ALARMIST) for FALSELY claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50598
61
BIG OIL LOVES CARBON TAXES & CAP AND TRADE & TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES (KNOWN AS GOVT SUBSIDIES TO BP OF COURSE.
almost every line in the following makes my blood boil, but none more so than the Libya lie/line. Finlay has the cheek to say Europe “needed to burn more coal” to make up for the disruption of oil exports from Libya, but omits to say the disruption was caused by NATO & allies attacking and destroying the country alongside their long-time friends, Al Qaeda!
28 Oct: Forbes: Jeff McMahon: Renewables Growing Fastest But Can’t Compete Without Help: BP
Renewable forms of energy are growing far faster than any other form of energy, a BP economist said in Chicago last week, but are unlikely to significantly impact the world’s reliance on fossil fuels without continued government interventions, such as a price on carbon…
But renewables make up such a small slice of the world’s energy portfolio now—only about 2 percent—that even at such a blistering growth rate they are unlikely to significantly displace fossil fuels in the next two decades.
“Renewables by 2030 get to a market share that’s roughly equivalent to what we see today for nuclear and hydro, in the ballpark of six to seven percent,” Finley (Mark Finley, BP’s general manager for global energy markets) said…
Finley’s appearance was sponsored by the Energy Policy Institute at Chicago and Young Professionals in Energy
Most of the growth of renewables occurred in wealthy developed nations—such as the United States, Germany, Spain and China—that subsidize renewable energy.
“What we can observe is that renewables are growing very rapidly already around the world, most typically in places where the governments can afford the subsidies needed to help these fuels compete. The key challenge going forward is: when things grow fast, subsidies get expensive fast. So can these forms of energy achieve economies of scale that will allow them to compete without subsidies?
“That is the real question.”
And part of the answer to that question will depend upon pricing carbon, whether through a carbon tax or a cap and trade program. Europe has a price on carbon, via cap and trade, but it burned more coal last year because its price on carbon is so low in the wake of the recession and because it needed coal to make up for the disruption of oil exports from Libya.
BP expects government policies to continue to affect the growth of renewables, Finley said, but as subsidies become more expensive, a price on carbon will become more important, in the long term, than subsidies.
“The other big issue of course is climate change, and a price on carbon, all else being equal, seems like it would help the cost competitiveness of most renewable forms of energy. We do believe that there will be continued government policy action to deal with climate change—haltingly, and maybe not as coordinated as we would have thought ten years ago—but we do continue to believe that there will be some action on the climate front…
Another corporation in the business of economic forecasting, Lloyd’s of London, has predicted different criteria for the success of renewables: energy demand in the Third World will bring the price of oil far higher than the price of renewable energy…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/10/28/renewables-growing-fastest-but-cant-compete-without-help-bp/
20
Are those good old-fashioned billions, or the feeble new-fangled thousand millions?
And (more importantly) how can I get a few million of that $18 billion flowing my way?
20
craven:
29 Oct: Bloomberg: Marc Roca, edited by Reed Landberg: Poland Renewables Bill to Forge New Solar Market as EU Cuts Back
Poland is set to approve renewable- energy laws that may spur a 100-fold increase in solar-power capacity next year, just as the rest of Europe scales back.
The country that has 3 megawatts of solar capacity may build as much as 400 megawatts next year if the renewables bill comes into effect on schedule in January, said Stanislaw Pietruszko, the head of Poland’s photovoltaic association. Neighboring Germany has 30,000 megawatts installed.
The east European nation is seeking to lure investors that have turned away from Germany, Italy and the U.K. after cash- strapped governments cut subsidies for clean-energy projects. Poland, which gets about 85 percent of its power from coal-fired plants, is poised to join Ukraine in offering some of Europe’s highest solar subsidies as its economy grows.
“The proposed rates are very good, higher than those in Germany,” Pietruszko, who is president of the Polish Society for Photovoltaics, said in an interview…
The government proposes paying tariffs of as much as 1.30 zloty (41 cents) for projects of less than 100 kilowatts until 2027. Larger plants will qualify for as many as 2.85 green certificates per megawatt-hour over 15 years. Each tradable certificate, which utilities are obliged to buy, averaged 248.6 zloty a megawatt-hour last month.
“If effective from January, the tariffs could lead to at least 300 to 400 megawatts in applications for plants that could be built by year-end,” Pietruszko said…
German developers such as Gehrlicher Solar AG and Conergy AG are preparing to tap the Polish market once the new rules come into effect. Chinese companies are also “on the starting blocks,” according to Pietruszko.
“The Polish market will definitely be very interesting once feed-in tariffs and green certificates are approved,” Antje Stephan, a spokeswoman for Hamburg-based Conergy, said by e-mail. “We’ve already started establishing our local network.” …
Poland is “interesting” given its proximity to Germany, its political and economic stability and high prices for electricity, said Stefanie Biala, Gehrlicher Solar’s director of project development…
Delay Possible
The bundling of three bills probably will lead to a delay that could push back the legislation until the middle of 2013, said Pietruszko…
“Many expect a delay to the introduction of the law to as late as January 2014,” said Martin Simonek, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London. “However, the market is already buzzing with developers securing land and permits. So once it’s approved, if terms remain favorable, we’ll see a surge in installations.”…
The government and industry will have to work together to avoid a boom-and-bust scenario like those seen in the Czech Republic and Spain, he said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/poland-renewables-bill-to-forge-new-solar-market-as-eu-cuts-back.html
10
Don’t you love the green communists (greens)……
Greens prepare to talk to aliens, now that voters here no longer listen
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_prepare_to_talk_to_aliens_now_that_voters_here_no_longer_listen/
Greens turn pale
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_turn_pale/
Greens decline. Is reason fashionable once more?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_decline_is_reason_fashionable_once_more/
21
The electricity price here in NSW is almost 4.5 times that paid in Ontario Canada without the daily availability charge either as far as I can ascertain. We in this area of NSW pay around 33 cents per KWh (GST excluded) while in Ontario they pay 7.4 c for the first 1000 KWh per month and 8.7 C thereafter. How is that, eh? I have tried to get this information published in the letters column in several newspapers but they won’t publish them. http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/OEB/Consumers/Electricity/Electricity+Prices .
We are being ripped off are we not?
Incidentally, a Toronto paper had an news article claiming that Ontario had the second highest electricity prices in North America!
90
,
00
The thing I never see is any studies into the effectiveness of renewable power.
Now we have had renewable power on the grid for some time there must be some studies being
done to see how much CO2 is actually being saved.So how much CO2 is being emmitted to
provide backup for when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow.I mean after all you
would want to know if you were actually emmitting more CO2 with renewable power on
the grid than if there were none or is that just a INCOVENIENT TRUTH.
20
Google this: studies of effectiveness of renewable power site:.edu
22
Hi Gee
Renewable power has been very effective.
Huge amounts of our tax dollars have been sent to the “right place” through the invocation of the mantra
“Renewable Energy”
Billions of tax dollars, gone, not “wasted” just disparu.
KK 🙂
10
One of my special concerns is that sometimes the language used in discussing Climate Change Fraud does not
correctly address the issue.
Headlines that say so many millions or billions “wasted” on climate change junk science or BER ( the new
hall, shelter and toilet fiasco) or Pink Batts are misleading.
None of this money that disappeared was WASTED.
Someone has IT.
The right people Got It and they are putting it to good use.
Favors were exchanged – debts in kind are owed. A transaction has occurred, a contract set up.
These money transfers are not waste: would it be possible to use a better description.
The term Stolen Money comes to mind.
Any others?
KK 🙂
60
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/artwork/icons/star-pick-oggi-ss.gif
.
Good point KK. The answer is the same people who make all the money from the big mining projects that cause cost blowouts which are then scape-goated onto greedy Australian workers demanding too much money. It goes like this:
The initial calls for tender are phrased in such a way, and with certain conditions, so that only a handful of very large Principal Contracting firms qualify to tender. Companies like Thiess Bros, Transfield, Worley, and so on.
These companies have interwoven directorships and common major shareholders, so ensuring tendering is at sky-high prices, with huge profit margins, and no competition, are not problems. Basically, they share up the work.
Having secured a contract they then divvy the project up into much smaller parcels, which they then put out for tender to small, battling Aussie companies. The Principal Contracting Company then sits back and “overseas” the project, meaning they charge huge “management fees” from the client at one end, while screwing the bejesus out of the small contractors at the other end, actually doing the work.
In turn, a goodly amount of the money collected in “management fees” gets paid to “consultants”, who “help” in the oversight process. These “consulting firms” are, by and large, virtual retirement villages or more correctly, protected workshops for half of our former state and federal politicians and senior bureaucrats. In fact, the actual Principal Contracting companies actually set up these “consulting firms” for that very purpose.
Naturally, with so many snouts in the trough, invariably costs blow out. A “consultant” is called in (at a fee you could retire on), who after a careful study and six business class flights to site with his coterie of 20-something year old female assistants, discovers that the problem is the guys doing 12 hour days, 21 days straight actually doing the work, got jack of being fed boiled sheep shanks seven nights a week, and demanded at least one night per rotation they get tripe instead, thus adding 14 cents per worker per week to the bottom line.
This, of course, is yet another example of “loss of productivity” caused by greedy Australian workers, which leads to yet another consulting firm being engaged to prepare a Discussion Paper on the merits of Principal Contracting Companies, and Major Mining Companies being allowed to bring in Chinese coolies to do they work as they are more than happy with boiled sheep shanks.
121
Hi MV
A very good expo of the “mates” industry.
That was a really good insight but isn’t there another group to go alongside the likes of Thiess and
Transfield; The Bruvvers or the Union Mooment? or are they on different teams?
Whatever; it’s only OUR money that’s being WASTED.
Ha Ha
KK 🙂
20
.
Actually KK, unions don’t really have a lot to do with industry or even organised labour, as such, any more. Basically they primarily exist to extort money from their members so there is a large slush fund for the pigs at the top to dip into for everything from travel to prostitutes to real estate investments.
Of course, from time to time the rank and file start to wonder just what, exactly, they are paying their dues for, so then some union organiser goes out and stirs up a bit of trouble onsite while some other union heavies have lunch with representatives and “consultants” from the relevant Principal Contractor and cook up a deal whereby the workers will all get an additional nine cents an hour.
The workers get their nine cents (less four cents tax, plus another four cents levy to the union for striving so hard on their behalf), the union heavies get to see their slush fund grow, and the Principal Contractor sticks in a Contract Variation Claim for $30 million based a Discussion Paper prepared by “consultants” pointing yet again to the lack of productivity of lazy Australian workers.
Everybody is happy.
.
Of course, unions have a a few secondary functions, the main ones being to provide a career path for the idiot sons of older union heavies into politics via a couple of bent law firms, funding the Labor party’s elections, and providing large amounts of cash to organisations like GetUp so when workers lose their jobs at least they know it was in a good cause.
.
Just a note to anyone wanting to accuse me of ignorant union-bashing:
I was raised by two grandfathers who both did hard time for daring to campaign for the right of workers to organise, and withhold their labour if need be. I was once a Senior Workplace Delegate for one of the largest unions in this country and I am a fully-fledged graduate of the Trade Union Training Association (TUTA).
I know what unions are supposed to be – sadly that no longer exists in Australia today.
81
Hi MV
Another brilliant exposition.
Paragraph 5 Fitz the bill exactly as we here in the Hunter know only too well.
KK
10
“overseas”
trying to figure out if you meant to spell it that way. if so… nice pun.
30
.
Much as I would love to take credit, it was, alas, merely a spelling error.
20
chuckle..
10
And a star pik!
00
A bit slow KK. This is how business is done in AU these days.
Try importing something and use a customs agency that does not have ex-union or ex-ALP pollies on their board. Yes, it costs more to use the ALP version, but you get a result.
Similarly, the RET is a small example of the corruption that exists in the Australian political/judicial system. It is wider and deeper than most people would dare imagine.
Where is Elliot Ness when you need him?
20
Yes Inedible
The price of freedom is Eternal bloody vigilance and I just feel tired out.
KK
00
BIG OIL AGAIN: What a fiasco:
28 Oct: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Shell attacks ‘ridiculous’ effects of European energy policy
Royal Dutch Shell has attacked the “ridiculous” impact of European energy policy, warning that governments are erasing the environmental benefits from expensive renewables by allowing coal use to increase.
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Brown, Shell’s upstream international director, said the UK and Europe were “missing a trick” in their policies.
“There are a lot of subsidies going towards renewables. Gas and coal are having to compete to be taken into power generation,” he said.
Because cheap gas is reducing coal demand in the US, there is “a lot of cheap coal in the marketplace”. As a result, Europe is burning more coal, while demand for gas – which emits much less CO2 than coal – is declining.
“You have this ridiculous situation where cash-strapped Europe is putting a lot of money into renewables to reduce CO2, meanwhile allowing … the power generators to take much more coal and back out gas,” he said.
All the benefits you’re getting from the renewable energy are being counteracted by far too much coal.”
Mr Brown said the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), designed to reduce emissions by placing a price on carbon, “doesn’t work”. “CO2 is priced at such a low level it’s meaningless,” he said. “We want a higher CO2 price…
Germany is one of the most high profile cases of a country that has invested heavily in renewables to curb carbon emissions – but is now burning increasing volumes of polluting coal.
The UK has also seen an increase in coal-fired generation as the economics have become more attractive than burning gas – although many of the most polluting coal plants will be forced to close over the next three years…
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said it agreed that “the EU Emissions Trading System needs to be strengthened” and so was pressing for Europe to adopt a 2020 emissions reductions target.
This was also why it had introduced the carbon price floor in the UK, which will push carbon costs above current ETS levels, he said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9639356/Shell-attacks-ridiculous-effects-of-European-energy-policy.html
00
Do I get extra points for predicting that Frankenstorm Sandy will be blamed on Gorebal wormin?
I called it, so I should get the Qdos right?
30
And if Frankenstorm isn’t as bad as initially expected, then the hurricane is due to natural variation! 😀
20
Jo talks about wasting $18 bn and I agree that’s a disgrace.
But what about the waste trying to reduce emissions by introducing a co2 tax in OZ.
It can’t make a scrap of difference to the climate or temp even if we packed up and lived in caves.
This info explains world co2 emissions to 2035 and proves that it is a fraud and con.
By 2035 co2 from the non OECD will increase by a whopping 73% but the OECD will increase by just 6%.
China, India etc are dwarfing our tiny emissions growth and the entire OECD could all live in caves and we still couldn’t make a scrap of difference.
The mitigation of AGW is the biggest lie promoted by the lying Gillard govt and anyone who believes their rubbish should hang their head in shame.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm
40
Imagine what our electricity bills would be like without the RET and Carbon Tax…I shouldn’t get my hopes up!
00
.
Ross Garnaut started the CO2 Tax & RET???
But here’s the man doing his thing again in PNG.
1. Here’s Ross Garnaut on the new boat “Fly Explorer” talking to Ati Wobiro, Governor of Western Province.
2. Here’s Ross Garnaut again signing a Memorandum of Understanding with Governor Ati Wobiro and PNGSDP CEO David Sode. Why?
3. Not forgetting Ross Garnaut is Chairman of the PNGSDP. The PNG Sustainable Development Program, the vehicle set up by BHP Billiton to try and atone for the environmental disaster caused by the Ok Tedi Mine and fund “sustainable development projects” to improve the lives of the people of of Western Province. Ross Garnaut was OK Tedi (and Lihir).
4. Oriomo industrial complex and deep-water port has been a project by PNGSDP that has already spent more than $40 million in the planning. That’s just great for Ross Garnaut to invest the PNGSDP funds into such a great project. Wow, a deep water port, industrial area, a SEZ (or Special Economic Zone – Tax free etc in Oriomo) all done by PNGSDP.
5. And here’s a map of the proposal for this district. But wait – there’s a copper smelter right bang in the middle. No one will know will they Ross Garnaut. A copper smelter is just the environmental thing you need at the Western Province after OK Tedi environmental disaster that happened.
6. Copper Smelter Ross Garnaut – no pollution – but they produce the following: sulphur dioxide, Lead, arsenic and selenium in huge quantities way above all accepted standards. But with you in charge Ross Garnaut, and worried about environmental vandalism – it will be safe. NOT – you are the number one vandal of PNG so far. Amazing.
7. Earlier this year, PNGSDP acquired a stake in Highlands Pacific Ltd, at the behest of Ok Tedi Mining Ltd. Highlands Pacific owns a stake in the Frieda River Copper projects well as tenements 40 Km north of Ok Tedi mine, which could potentially be farmed into the existing mine processing facilities. Amazing.
8. Ross Garnaut is now a substantial shareholder of Highland Pacific Ltd. No conflict of interest is there Ross Garnaut. Amazing.
9. PNGSDP is currently having talks with Talisman Energy, to built a gas powered plant that would utilize gas from Talisman’s Stanley Gas field, in Western Province. Mr Sode would also like to see all of Western Province’s gas processed in the Province. Amazing.
This man Ross Garnaut who comes to Australia and tells farmers & cattlemen to stop methane emmisions as it will endanger the worlds climate – Co2 Tax, RET etc – carries on in PNG like a dictator and environmental vandal.
Have one last look at Ross Garnaut sweating on Ati Wobiro – licking his lips in anticipation of the millions to be raked in. Meanwhile Western Province will be an environmental disater area of the 2020’s.
More to come – the MSM aren’t brave enough to take this Basterd on – but his time is coming and quickly.
40
Dave
Thanks for putting this together.
I have always had an interest in PNG; my father was there during the war and I visited for a month in 1969.
The result of INDEPENDENCE granted to the people of PNG is not something I like to dwell on; it gives me the
creeps because it reminds me that the average bloke is just here on earth to get shafted by politicians and
bankers.
Can anyone tell them apart?
Zimbabwe, Eat Your Heart Out.
KK 🙂
10
To climate scientists and many, many others, there is no reality other than computer models. Discovery Channel ran a science fiction “documentary” on a found mermaid body with no statements that this was purely fiction until the end. They ran a program claiming to “scientifically prove” you can hypnotize a person and get them to assassinate someone against their will (just like David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty and a jet liner disappear). Fiction and modeling ARE reality. It’s those of us who think there is a real world that are the problem.
30
That is really scarey stuff Sheri.
KK
00
Interesting to read this in The Australian today.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/labors-whip-joel-fitzgibbon-calls-for-green-target-cut/story-e6frg6xf-1226507039573
00
Tonyfromoz, I enjoy your work but. Not everyone that visits this blog is a ‘regular’. If the purpose of the blog is to educate the great unwashed such as myself then MattB’s so called dumb questions do serve a useful purpose. I can understand that you have lost patience with Matt, but this is the internet and many others besides he can benefit from your wisdom, even though you sometimes feel frustrated at having to repeat yourself ad nauseam.
10
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/ret-success-means-18-billion-dollars-wasted/ […]
00