JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Weekend Unthreaded

9.4 out of 10 based on 49 ratings

251 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #
    • #
      john

      Giant wind turbine fails, crushes truck on autobahn.

      http://www.carbuzz.com/m/Article.aspx?Id=39267

      90

    • #
      David Maddison

      It seems that the short life of wind turbines is becoming more apparent every day

      This makes their economics even more disasterous than it already is.

      292

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Speaking of economics – anyone care to analyze this and comment if its nonsense or not?

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-19/why-youre-about-to-pay-through-the-nose-for-power/8629090

        “It was the final straw for an industry exasperated by more than a decade of political infighting and policy backflips.

        As expected, investment in renewable energy plummeted. What wasn’t expected was that the power industry began to make good on its plans to mothball its antiquated coal-fired generators.

        The result? A supply shortage. For anyone with even a vague understanding of microeconomics that means just one thing; price hikes.

        The Hazelwood power station closure in March — which is expected to cause blackouts across the eastern states this summer — may have brought the looming crisis to a head.

        What’s less understood is that within the next two decades, 68 per cent of our coal-fired generators will be more than half a century old and ready to be retired. There are no plans to replace any of them, at least not with coal.

        If the situation is dire now, it will only get worse. No bank is willing to finance a new coal fired power station and no amount of argument in the Parliament will alter that. ”

        Its worth notingthat the NWO mob love creating artificial crises – so they can “solve” them….

        The end result – always slavery…..

        50

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          I note that this article begins by blaming the price rise in power on Tony Abbott for repealing the Carbon Tax. According to the ABC, power prices have gone up since then. It’s another correlation/causation argument. There is absolutely no mention of the huge costs off unreliable, intermittent energy from wind and solar, which is the root cause of the cost of our power now. Trust the ABC?

          40

        • #
          Gerry, England

          Sounds like the UK as well where coal plants are being retired – then bulldozed with great haste – and nothing is coming to replace the lost capacity. The government has so screwed up the market nobody wants to even build any gas generation. As for the Hinckley Point nuclear plant – the longer that doesn’t exist the better given how high the power cost will be.

          30

    • #
      Grumpa

      https://reneweconomy.com.au/bernardi-goes-solar-to-keep-the-lights-on-but-did-he-get-storage-80636/
      The lefts love-in with windmills is stuffing the country, even the South Australian pollies are prepping
      [Editorial discretion applied] Fly

      31

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I had to go to a conference last week, and decided to take an intercity bus, rather than drive there and back, in my own car.

      In the event, the normal bus route was closed, due to some extensive road works, so the bus was diverted onto an alternate route, that passed through a large commercial wind farm.

      I was amazed to see that less than half of the windmills were actually spinning, and presumably producing electricity.

      Of those that were not, many showed evidence of scorching, around the nacelle, and others were missing a blade, with one unit just having a single blade, that was forlornly hanging, and blowing backwards and forwards in the wind.

      There was a time when I considered investing in wind power, but never quite got around to doing it. I now consider myself lucky.

      310

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        The big question now RW is just who is going to repair the damaged units and in the slightly longer term, who will dismantle and scrap them.

        Perhaps the aluminium blades could be recycled into external building cladding.

        Yes, I know that’s a bit tacky, but we need to draw attention at every failure of government that affects us. Putting a combustible metal in that situation is something that government should have stopped and makes you wonder.

        Do importers grease the wheels of government process?

        KK

        60

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Do importers grease the wheels of government process?

          That would never happen in Australia KK. You know that. They’re far too ethical and self-righteous for such a tacky suggestion. Wash your mouth out with acidified ocean water.

          CHINESE GOVERNMENT CAUGHT BRIBING THE LIBERAL PARTY, LABOR PARTY AND JULIE BISHOP

          A stick of dynamite was lit on Friday (26-8-16) with revelations that Chinese businessman with links to Foreign Minister Julie Bishop have donated $500,000 to the Western Australian Liberal Party. The question that Julie Bishop needs to answer is did she ask for the $500,000 donation when she was overseas in China on government business? If the answer is no then what exactly was her involvement with the donation as it is clearly directed at her and the decisions she may or may not make as Foreign Minister?”

          https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2016/08/28/chinese-government-caught-bribing-the-liberal-party-labor-party-and-julie-bishop/

          40

        • #
          Analitik

          The blades are fibreglass (carbon fibre is too expensive). They can only be recycled as filler material.

          90

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          Grease the wheels of government process?

          At risk of finding I have said it here before, I point out that the greatest lurk in business comes in three forms:
          1. Persuade a government to mandate the use of your product,
          2. Persuade a government to prohibit the use of your competitor’s product, and
          3. Persuade a government to prohibit the use of your less profitable product, thereby mandating the use of your more profitable product.
          All three are at play in Australia’s energy market, and, indeed, in the whole AGW push.

          100

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I understand that the wind farm is owned by a private company, which sells the power it produces to the NZ Electricity Department. But don’t quote me on that.

          The other interesting thing was that there were no fences on the property, at all. Induced electric currents are obviously not good for stock, or people for that matter.

          60

  • #
    James Murphy

    Just when I think Victoria, or more specifically, Dan Andrews, must have reached peak madness, I see this…
    Australian State May Back Floating LNG Import Plan

    “…Australia’s Victoria state is working with AGL Energy to study building a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal to beef up local gas supply, even as the country is set to become the world’s largest LNG exporter…”

    390

    • #
      David Maddison

      Yes, we haven’t reached Peak Stupid yet.

      I can see it getting far worse. A majority of the population is no longer capable of critical thought due to the deliberate dumbing down of the education system over about the last 50 odd years.

      302

    • #
      joseph

      You don’t get this far past ridiculous without genius having been involved.

      90

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Its not stupid – its clever.

        The Communists ( & occultists who worship the earth as “Gaia” ) have infiltrated the green movements as cover for their activities.

        One thing the Left is is devilishly ( literally ) clever. They are in slow motion, hacking australias economic legs out from underneath it.

        People have to realise the Left don’t play by our moral standards ( you are look at it wrong if you assume morality exists within ….)
        – they are activists and agitators deep within their DNA.

        Can you reason with a mad man?……..

        150

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          That depends on the calibre of your “argument”.

          30

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            .50 calibre (machine gun), is only 12.7 mm dia, and scares most folk. [email protected]/sec, (A10, warthog) is always effective. 120mm (M1A2 main) takes out the whole building. No concealed carry permit is needed! 🙂

            60

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Effective, I guess. But not subtle.

              40

            • #
              Gerry, England

              I have a soft spot for miniguns firing at 6000 rounds a minute – even slowed to 3000 rounds that’s a lot of lead.

              30

              • #
                Will Janoschka

                Gerry, England June 19, 2017 at 11:25 pm

                “I have a soft spot for miniguns firing at 6000 rounds a minute – even slowed to 3000 rounds that’s a lot of lead.”

                Me too. Fine machine. However 200 ISIL each with an [email protected] round/min (2 seconds each), will now possess your minigun. Will they use it, eat it, or like sailors, take it apart with only an available nail file, to see now it works?
                All the best!-will-

                00

        • #
          David Maddison

          Fully agree OriginalSteve.

          20

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          A big percentage of them are not even Marxists/Communists or whatever. They are just old fashioned anarchists, for whom any cause that is disruptive will do. Should put them all on the random breath/swab test.

          30

    • #

      Yep, for practical reasons we have to import, despite our large exports of gas. Last time I checked it was about one-to-five import-to-export. Which is a lot, and those imports can only increase. Add that to our imports of oil (and lack of refining capacity) and you are looking at a huge fuel bill for foreign product, including all the hardware for the whirlygigs and solar.

      The geopolitics of our heroic War on Coal are even harsher than the monetary cost. The price of oil is low for now, as are interest rates. As I’ve said before, a single day’s blockage of the Strait of Hormuz can change everything. Even a few restless Nigerian “tribespeople” can jolt the globe.

      As I’ve nagged before, we are buying into the world’s pipeline and sea lane problems, even as we waste our coal by burning it in clunkers or by leaving it in the ground. Someone somewhere thinks this is smart.

      130

      • #

        Speaking of imported oil, as an earthmover and farmer for over 30 years now, I really love it when people talk about a “post-fossil-fuel age”. I invite them to consider banning diesel use in Australia for 4 weeks, to get a taste of this ridiculous proposition. No diesel, no cities, is the basic outcome. Stop the B-doubles hauling everything to the cities for 4 weeks, there would be no fuel and no food available for purchase anywhere. If the stoppage were longer, and agriculture was impacted, there would simply be no food to move after a missed season. The only type of civilisation possible without diesel is the most basic 3rd world type of rural poverty, where a persons whole years hard work might, if lucky, provide enough food to keep that person alive. In the transition to this type of non-economy, nearly everybody dies.

        210

        • #

          You’re right, though I wonder if 4 hours wouldn’t be enough to prove the point. Even four hours in the middle of Sunday night without diesel usage – and even permitting the use of machines potentially convertible to other fuels – would be interesting. (There’s a magnificent excavator parked on my land right now. I wonder what’s the plan to replicate that kind of speed and power when our Green Betters finally send us 100% renewable. Oxen? Slaves? Better not give them ideas.)

          A conservationist, as opposed to a greenoid, sees diesel as a precious resource for the transport, construction, excavation and ag sectors. Every drop wasted as coal replacement increases our import dependency and puts that bit more pressure on oil price.

          Something else under pressure is lithium. Every needless use of battery storage is a sucker punch. Yes we have a big lithium mining industry in Oz, but no we don’t have the processing of China or the huge reserves and ease of extraction of Chile. Even our own lithium comes back to us a high-cost import.

          There is one area where nobody competes with Oz where we have centuries of supply. That’s black coal, the superb black coal we are hating and wasting.

          170

          • #

            Prometheus gave us fire,
            Gods didn’t want us ter have it.
            Coal released serfs from slavery,
            Elites didn’t want us ter have it.

            70

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            Depopulation is their plan.

            20

            • #
              Will Janoschka

              Ted O’Brien.June 19, 2017 at 9:20 pm

              “Depopulation is their plan.”

              I agree. This is why us peasants\serfs can and need to destroy their plan? The self appointed Elite\Aristocrats ‘claim to know’! They have ‘not a clue’.
              Each newborn with effective parents carries a wee bit of God’s knowledge different from any other. Can you explain why God created earthlings (usins) with so little ability to learn?

              00

        • #
          yarpos

          I doubt anyone is naive enough to think if you change supply like an on/off switch that anything would work. They have been brainwashed into think that the “transition to renewables” is real, well advanced and will be 100% in a relatively short window 2030-50 maybe. Excuse me a pig just landed on the verandah, I have to shoo it away.

          50

  • #
    doubtingdave

    In the London fire . the powers that be , had a choice between using the money they had available to either install a sprinkler system or to cut the buildings carbon emissions with cladding that was oil based , they chose the wrong option , what more can you say , why did they get their priorities so wrong

    282

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Because even the unvetted labour vote herds cannot compete with the compulsory virtue signalling of CAGW, several hundred angry protesters storm the town hall demanding answers, justice and blaming capitalism because they’re organised by the left.

      Not even one month ago 22 little girls were blown to pieces in Manchester as a result of unvetted vote herding and a few thousand hold a peaceful gathering of mourning with flowers, candles and bears because they’re organised by PC social engineering.

      It’s akin to being told what to care about, what to feel and how to react without question, a person stops being the beekeeper and becomes a drone.

      231

      • #
        toorightmate

        These protesters are not there in sympathy for the poor souls who have died.
        They are the Leftist rent-a-crowd that rock up to disrupt society. They used to go under the name of communism. The now go under the name of Green.

        222

        • #
          Greebo

          Did you notice how ‘professional’ most of their signs were?

          111

          • #
            Roger

            and how quickly they were produced … Momentum and Corbynistas must have planned this ‘spontaneous’ demonstration a day or so earlier. Part of their attempts to impose marxism on the UK.

            50

      • #
        Freddyflatfoot

        Yonnie, I’m thinking you mean unfettered, not unvetted. First means not confined, or under control. Second means not comparable. Correct me if I’m wrong.

        20

    • #
      brill

      Interesting. Do you have evidence for this.

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        There is a lot of chatter on the wires, but nobody in authority is making any comments, “at this time”.

        It would not take a lot to put the rumour to rest, if bona fide evidence could be presented.

        What we see, is a common pattern, where poor decisions have been made, usually for dubious reasons, and people are scurrying for cover.

        Draw your own conclusions.

        50

  • #

    I really need some scrutiny on this little piece:
    https://dhf66.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-principles-of-science-v7-5/
    Any help to get it right is welcomed.

    30

    • #

      Wow, is it that good – or bad – or whatever?
      I´m still awake for 3 hours – ready to take on a discussion. 🙂

      10

    • #
      Peter C

      I had a look at that web reference and got back a virus notice! I suggest that everyone else ignores it.

      30

      • #

        That is peculiar, it is a link to a wordpress site just like wattsupwiththat that is on the same platform.

        20

      • #

        Do you happen to have any clues that are shareable?

        00

        • #
          Peter C

          Not really,

          I read a few lines and thought it might be some sort of sophistry. Then a notice bobbed up to say that I had 3 viruses on my I-phone, click below to resolve. I just left the site.

          My i-pad is still working, at this point. Some one braver than me might have another look.

          41

          • #

            Thanks anyway. 🙂 My virus program finds no viruses on my computer – for what it is worth.
            I would imagine that WordPress got control on the content on their platform as well.
            Anyhow – there is no sophistry – that I can guarantee – it is pure stuff.

            20

            • #
              James Bradley

              Science or Fiction,

              Easy to read. The purpose is to establish/document/publish a set of universal accepted scientific principles.

              20

          • #
            James Bradley

            Peter C,

            There’s no virus. It’s a scamming pop-up.

            50

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Why don’t you write a little story to detail this mystery. Then we would be able to comment.

          30

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        I’m pretty well protected with Malware Bytes, Trend, and Clamwin. There doesn’t appear to be anything sinister.
        As for the article, it seems to be someone trying to out-philosophise Karl Popper.
        Perhaps Popper needed some clearer definition to be understood by the Great Unwashed.
        Personally I don’t find anything in it to be either alarmed or excited about.
        Perhaps I should have a closer perusal.

        60

        • #
          jorgekafkazar

          I took a look at the piece and, despite its accuracy, it didn’t seem to break new ground.

          40

          • #

            That is good to hear. It was not my intention to break new ground. It was my intention do define clearly the characteristics of reliable knowledge. Believe it or not, I think that the basic principles of science, the characteristics of reliable knowledge, are not that well defined anywhere else – at least not in a compact and available manner.

            10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I find the phrase, “… the characteristics of reliable knowledge”, to be an oxymoron.

              No knowledge can be absolutely “reliable”, and bias-free. No measurement (which is the basic building block of science), can be infinitely precise. Very few calculations can be absolute. And so on and so on – you get the gist.

              Science is the way we perceive the world around us, and how we explore and explain how nature works, to the limits of our capability and satisfaction.

              As such, there can be no absolutes in defining the characteristics of reliable knowledge, because there is always more that can be discovered, or inferred, or explored.

              I differentiate between ice, snow, and slush. The Eskimo’s have about twenty (or so) different words to explain the nuance of the frozen water they encounter. Is their science different to mine? The answer is both yes, and no. It is a matter of degree (if you will pardon the joke).

              20

              • #

                @Rereke Whakaaro
                Imagine all the things that have to be known and reliable for you to write that comment and me to respond to it. Even though we can always improve our knowledge in the future, that does not mean that we do not know the things we know today. We know things with some uncertainty.

                I know that if I jump from 5 meters it will take about 1 second before I hit the pool. Not exactly, but I know for sure that it will take more than 0,5 sec and less than 1,5 second. That is reliable knowledge. Even though we can not know everything exactly, that does not mean that we can not know a lot of things that are true.

                10

              • #
        • #

          That might be a good sign. You might be well equipped or I my article might be trivial.
          Anyhow, I take it as a good sign. Out-philosophising Karl Popper appears to be quite trivial.
          I think he was great on demarcating science from beliefs with his falsifiability criteria. But I also think that he did not provide clear characteristics of reliable knowledge. Here is his perspective on definitions: “It is, I now think, the fact that most philosophers regard definitions as important, and that they have never taken my assurance seriously that I do regard them as unimportant. I neither believe that definitions can make the meaning of our words definite, nor do I think it worth bothering about whether or not we can define a term…”
          In my view that is a serious problem with Karl Popper´s perspectives. And his “rules” are not at all that easy to identify. That is what I try to be better at.

          10

          • #

            I have a copy of your Principles of Science on my phone (with reference to source), as a part of my “need to carry” stuff. I think you cover the subject very well; it fleshes out what I was taught. I am old enough to have had what is now a very rare commodity; a classical education. The style of those who supplied this varied from humourous to tyrannical, but all without exception had one aim in mind – teaching their students how to think. They covered philosophy, logic, scientific method AND semantics. I recall the key source for the last item was “The Meaning of Meaning”. My copy is long gone, but was probably the Ogden Richards version of 1923. Available on the net scanned to pdf if anyone is interested.
            It is not difficult to give those who have a similar background a reminder of these principles. The challenge is how to get them across to those who have no experience of these topics.

            50

  • #

    better living through chemistry

    10

  • #
    doubtingdave

    Or maybe dinn , the priority of the civic leaders was not representing their constituents , but more over representing the wishes of their ideological indoctrination , both labour and conservative push the global warming meme , and on this occasion it seems that their ideology was more important than representing the people that voted them in to power , how else can you explain why they prioritised a cladding system that would of taken years to pay for , over the need for a basic sprinkler system

    110

    • #
      Dennis

      There needs to be thorough investigative reporting based on China Associates, Australian politicians and others who have business interests in China and have had for decades.

      One of the first that I am aware of was the Injeus education firm owned by the Rudd Family that recruits Chinese students for Australian education. At one stage Injeus had the right to issue student visas for Chinese people until the Howard Coalition government cancelled that arrangement. Injeus later became the Labour UK contractor for employment and education.

      The Australian newspaper reported the sighting of former PM Rudd and at the time of the sighting Minister for Communications Turnbull dining at a Beijing, China restaurant with members of their families, both men have Chinese sons in law.

      Former Labor Minister for Defence Joel Fitzgibbons was reported by the MSM who revealed that he had gone to China leaving his wife and family in Australia one Christmas holiday period. He travelled with his Canberra flat landlady, an Australian Chinese business women. The exposure resulted in Fitzgibbons losing his seat in cabinet.

      There have been considerable business dealings between Australians, Australian Chinese, politicians and others and China.

      It would be interesting to know if those business arrangements included cladding systems, solar panels and wind turbines.

      Rudd and Tang is an interesting Google search.

      70

    • #
      Greebo

      Could be a little bit more to it than even that:

      Five years ago, when Grenfell Tower owners Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council decided on a refit, there were two factors front of mind. The first was visual improvement, to make the 1970s monstrosity, seen for kilometres around, less obtrusive to its neighbouring Victorian conservation areas, such as Notting Hill and Chelsea.

      Lot of money there, and Grenfell was an “eyesore”, which was turning off the punters.

      (Source: The Australian http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/aesthetics-put-before-safety-say-residents/news-story/83fa029a0647560cf6ca1a8c8a2fd270 )

      20

  • #
    doubtingdave

    I’m talking as a plumbing and heating engineer , that in the past put dry rising systems and sprinklers into new buildings as a prerequisite , why would politicians or bureaucrats prioritise global warming or carbon emissions against health and safety issues , unless they are totally indoctrinated to the global warming cause and don’t represent the constituents that put them into power in the first place

    160

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      There’s also the possibility of baksheesh.

      70

    • #
      Watt

      Local councils have become infested with UN Sustainable Decelopment dogma that presumes to transcend elected politics ( ie. is unquestionably good & not a matter for choice).

      10

  • #
  • #
    Another Ian

    “Shocker: Government mandated trillions in global renewable investment tally”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/17/shocker-government-mandated-trillions-in-global-renewable-investment-tally/

    30

    • #
      sophocles

      Eric Warrell drew attention to this article

      The biggest deniers in the whole climate change debate are those who think we can have affordable power, lower emissions and a reliable network.
      We can’t.

      So there it is, in a nutshell.

      20

  • #
  • #
    • #
      Robber

      Thanks Dennis. Piers has nailed it.

      70

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Its a bit like in the days when laws were introduced whereby a man with a red flag had to walk in front of the new technology of cars.

        “Such teachings come through hypocritical liars,
        whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.”
        ( 1 Tim 4:2 )

        This is a Biblical commentary of the Last Days, however note the comment about a dead conscience and how such things are occurring globally. The whole CAGW thing is a perfect example of breathtaking dead consciences across the globe……

        10

    • #
      GD

      Piers’ article is an excellent slap in the face to Finkel, Turnbull and the warmist Liberals. On reading, it would seem that Craig Kelly MP has had some positive input here.

      Craig Kelly is one of the few Libs, apart from Tony Abbott, who hasn’t drunk the AGW kool-aid. He is also extremely approachable. I’ve had a number of email conversations with him re the AGW scam. He gets it.

      The more that Kelly can reach out to journalists, the better. And perhaps, the more that informed and qualified people reach out to him the better.

      121

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Reluctant as I am to defend Finkel, I should point out that he had an impossible task; namely trying to graft (no pun intended) a variable system onto a continuous system while coming out with something that pleased the PM.
      The important thing I see is that he recommended that the variable generators have to supply a stable supply. As this will make them prohibitively expensive no-one is going to build any, so talk of a 42% renewables target is merely flannery.
      Pumped storage won’t help, it costs a lot and takes time to install, and the volume required is enormous. We have some professor running around claiming that there are numerous sites in SA for pumped sea water storage. In an idle back of an envelope calculation I worked out that to ensure a reliable mainly wind based supply for SA it would require a ‘pond’ 220km. by 740km. with 3 metre walls (minimal construction cost) on the elevated (80M +) west coast. And since pumped storage is most likely to be 75% efficient it would require a lot more turbines and would increase the cost of electricity by a third (4 units in 3 units out). And that is for 6.5% (decreasing) of Australian electricity generation. Are we going to install 21 Snowy Mountain schemes?

      As for the fantasy about batteries I calculate that at present prices we would have to spend $1620 BILLION on Tesla batteries – the fantasy of choice for greenies – to cover for 3 days. That being a minimum without regard to discharge rates and levels.

      80

      • #
        David Maddison

        The Infeasibility of pumped hydro storage for grid scale backup in the USA is discussed at https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

        I wrote an article on pumped hydro storage in the January 2017 Silicon Chip magazine.

        Incidentally, even though pumped hydro may be expensive it is the cheapest large scale electricity storage there is, although it is only suitable for load balancing, not as a grid scale battery because of the vast amount of storage required due to the low energy density of pumped hydro.

        121

      • #
        Analitik

        Finkel may have recommended that the variable generators have to supply a stable supply but he did not factor this into his $90 reduction in average power bills claim. That’s enough for me to tar and brush him as yet another charlatan feeding at the trough of CAGW subsidies.

        50

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Finkel didnt have to take the job……did he?

        You sign up….ergo……

        Nuff said.

        10

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      It was a refreshing read from the usual. I am heartened that someone in a position of influence is condemning such a nonsense report publicly.

      70

      • #
        toorightmate

        But Chairman Mal does not like people criticising the Finkel report with “one liners”.
        One liners are the realm of the PM only.
        Despite people’s opinions of Trump, I doubt that he would sink to the level of Turnbull by satirising other world leaders in such a childish fashion.
        When will the Liberal party get enough parliamentarians with enough gumption to get rid of the dead beat failure?

        140

    • #
      Mark M

      Video: Malcolm Turnbull admits it’s “ludicrous” to think emissions can be reduced without raising power prices!

      https://twitter.com/TeamTAbbott/status/875849774141919232

      50

    • #
      TdeF

      The key to an electricity grid is synchronization, as in this report. AC is totally unsuitable for a grid but need AC for transformers and distance. Thanks to Ohm’s law V=IR, if V goes up, I goes down, lowering losses but to connect thousands of random power sources to an AC grid is a nightmare. A slight mismatch in timing and you have the near instant destruction of one or both. Restarting is like restarting a chorus line. This makes for a very fragile system as everyone gets out fast if a mismatch happens, like your computer having to reboot suddenly. Except that it can take many hours, even days to boot up.

      Of course Alan Finkel, an electrical engineer, doesn’t not want to talk about how they are connected. Someone else’s problem. Nor as Chief Scientist about the fact that there is no scientific justification for any of this.

      Now Turnbull is working with his favorite Green senators to bypass Labor on Gonski 2. May this time he can surprise everyone by a Liberal/Green coalition? It is what he wanted last time, to consign hated Labor and Nationals to history. He is now started. To vote Liberal is to vote Green. Who cares what voters want anyway? Malcolm will decide what is good for Australia. No one else. He did pay millions for the job.

      40

    • #
      David Maddison

      There is a comment about the increasing use of wood fires for heating in the Akerman article. Wood fires are fine in rural areas but the pollution is unacceptable in suburban areas. I live near someone who burns wood for heat and the smoke is quite annoying. Presumably they use an open fireplace rather than a more modern wood burning heating system.

      In any case, why should a supposedly advanced and energy rich country like Australia be reverting to primitive and inconvenient heating methods?

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Here is a video from last year talking about flammable building cladding. It is from a commercial organisation so they promote their own product at the end but the initial discussion is very interesting.

    https://youtu.be/J9CxtUlJLQs

    42

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Powerline week in pictures civil war edition, if anyone has ideas on why these links go directly into moderation I’d appreciate it.

    10

  • #
    David Maddison

    I think the Grenfell fire in the UK can be seen as a consequence of “green” policies causing hugely expensive energy prices with associated policies of mandated energy efficiencies leading to, in this case, the fitting of sub-standard non-fire-retardant cladding for a likely very marginal increase in energy efficiency.

    142

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      The real question is whether the cladding had a net return on investment. If not, then there was no justification for it except green posturing.

      41

    • #
      Greebo

      It seems that the original quote was for retardant cladding, but the difference was around £2,500,00. Guess what was chosen.

      50

  • #
    clipe

    Re: Chip Javert’s Q: Is “de-cladding” an activity that monies from the USA would have been used for if the USA had been stupid enough to remain in the Paris Accord?

    Almost certainly not.

    Cladding, as Greg above points out above at 11:45am, is done to reduce human CO2 emissions (of buildings). More cladding would be the likely expenditure per the Paris [email protected]

    See, e.g., […]

    Janice Moore comment over at WUWT.

    20

  • #
    • #
      toorightmate

      Isn’t it cheap and light and fast to recharge – just like Willard/Malcolm said.

      10

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        It isnt cheap, weighs more than 2 tons, and requires charging more often than claimed.
        Apart from that the reviewer thought it was shoddily built.

        30

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          It makes one question whether or not Malcolmm/Willard/Wilbur has ever been close to one.

          20

          • #
            Analitik

            Willard Malcolm has spent extensive time researching the Tesla website, Electrek and Elron Musk’s twitter feed. What other research does he need?

            20

    • #
      • #
        yarpos

        Thanks for providing that

        From the article, discussing overseas EV incentives…… “Maybe if the Telsa ran on coal, Australian owners would get a few financial free kicks too?” well it sorta does really.

        10

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes, but near impossible drive reasonable distances without long recharging and the distance you get is often 2/3 of what is estimated by the car. That can be disastrous. So strictly inner city use and then raises the possibility of being stopped in heavy traffic with nothing short of a tow truck to get you home. Ludicrous mode is great though for beating people to the next traffic light.

      30

      • #
        TdeF

        Conversely hybrids give the advantages of both, great acceleration, long range and lower CO2 emissions, as if that matters. No NO2 at all, unlike diesels. Does anyone really believe CO2 is a pollutant? In which case even trees and grass are polluting and pollutants. That really redefines Green when green things are pollution.

        71

        • #
          Greebo

          Conversely hybrids give the advantages of both, great acceleration, long range

          Proper hybrids, TdeF. Our daughter has a Prius V, damn her eyes, and great acceleration is not one of it’s qualities, I assure you. McLaren, with the P1, Porsche, with the 918, and your favourite, the Ferrari La Ferrari, on the other hand…

          30

          • #
            toorightmate

            Aaaaaahhhhhhhh, the Prius.
            The car that Kevin Rudd told us we would all be driving by 2018.
            That was one of his more accurate statements.
            He scared mining investment away from Australia for at least a decade.
            Looks like Turnbull/Morrison have now turned banking investment away from Australia for a few years.
            Isn’t it nice of Turnbull/Morrison to rip a few billion dollars of value out of our superannuation funds already. How come the main stream media is not covering this disaster for super funds? – too dumb to notice maybe?

            60

            • #
              TdeF

              Agreed. The Toyota Camry Hybrid is cheaper and a respectable 8.0 seconds to 100km/hr for a mid sized car. The Prius a lethargic 10.9 seconds and half the power? The Toyota Corolla Hybrid is far cheaper. Why anyone would buy a Prius is not understandable. La Ferrari is only 3 seconds to 100km/hr with a $3,000,000 price tag in Australia but you get fewer doors, as if anyone cares.

              20

              • #
                Greebo

                Daughter defends her decision by saying it was the best 7 seater she could afford. Camry wouldn’t have worked. Anyway, it is an awful car that I refuse point blank to drive. The CVVT makes you think that the clutch is slipping, the mass of all those batteries make it handle like a canal boat. But hey, the Bluetooth works!
                The other daughter, bless her heart, has no kids and drives an XR8. Go figure.

                10

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                There is something just special about a V8 when it cranks and catches…..

                Love the burble…..

                Had an opportunity to drive a 458 recently….separate ECU map for each gear, goes very hard and the exhaust note is wonderful. Going through towns I put it up a gear to allow the warble to be heard more clearly….and once youd clear a town, it was right foot down and hang on…..

                Your average car is so depressingly heavily detuned, its just sad…..

                A friend has a supercharged Lotus, its a beast of a thing…..committment is not lifting off in a corner at 200km/h….

                10

      • #
        David Maddison

        Another thing that reduced the range of electric cars in Australia is the requirement to use air conditioning in summer. Also at higher temperatures such as 30C, very typical of Aussie summers, the service life of the batteries is reduced. Finally, range figures are based on full discharge of the batteries and that also reduces service life.

        I would be surprised if typical range under real circumstances were more than half the quoted figures but that won’t bother rich Greens on the public payroll who buy these things who typically never venture out of an urban area.

        http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries

        20

  • #
    Crakar24

    Something different…. Someone very close to me has had severe breathing issues for over 12 months. Any exertion will quickly lead them to gasping for air. Every test possible has been conducted and nothing was found to be wrong. Finally a doctor made the discovery that they don’t have enough carbon pollution in their body. After doing a little research I now understand why the medical fraternity support the agw junk science.

    30

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Could you expand on that please? I seem to be getting worse.

      20

      • #
        Crakar24

        When your muscle’s do work they produce co2 which takes the form of carbonic acid in your blood lowering the pH (ocean acidification).

        The carbonic acid is measured in the neck and chest these measurements are sent to the brain to control breathing. Co2/carbonic acid goes up breathing goes up to expel more co2 therefore co2 controls breathing (just like temp lol). In this case there is a disconnect, the brain thinks co2 is too high so hyperventilation kicks in driving co2 to very low levels then o2 starvation begins, slow breathing begins to restore co2 levels then the cycle starts again

        30

    • #

      ” … the medical fraternity support the agw junk science ”
      Not all fortunately. Pays to “shop around” if possible. I quit one doctor’s list when I got some agw bunk.
      My and my wife’s current GPs are non-believer and skeptic respectively. Good grief it is the internal concentration of CO2 that TRIGGERS breathing …

      60

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Did they have Hypocapnia?, CO2 is vital to all carbon based life forms.

      40

    • #
      Peter C

      Exertional dyspnoea is a serious symptom.

      I doubt that all possible tests have been done. A referral to a respiratory physician is in order.

      30

  • #
    Andrew

    Changing climate… NOT Climate Change … is happening and not how some would like it to be

    https://www.facebook.com/pat.gouin.7/posts/1453551651371961

    10

  • #

    Okay then, if we are to have such a large concentration of wind power, just what are you going to do when something like this happens?

    It’s 11AM on Sunday 18th June 2017.

    The current TOTAL output of every wind plant in South Australia is ….. ZERO.

    That’s a Nameplate of 1698MW, and around 900 or so individual wind towers, and NOT ONE of them is turning and actually generating power.

    The current total power consumption in South Australia is 1422MW and the cost of generated power is $118.07/MWH, far and away the most expensive in Australia at the moment.

    Thank Heavens it’s a Sunday morning.

    Tony.

    Reference – Aneroid (once you arrive here, scroll to the second image down, click on MW at the top right of the image, and under the image untick every box except sub total and SA) In actual fact, it’s less than zero, so all the wind plants in South Australia are drawing power from the grid.

    231

  • #
    LightningCamel

    Victoria is not much better, about 5%.

    20

  • #
    pat

    Britain’s rollout of smart meters was never truly mandatory, altho that was the impression MSM usually gave when writing about how the rollout was behind schedule, e.g.

    10 Jun: UK Telegraph: Utility companies ‘face £700m cost’ for delay in fitting smart meters

    there was another problem which occasionally got some press:

    26 May: Canberra Times: 3225 smart meters in Canberra vulnerable to hacking

    Oct 2015: BBC: Mark Ward: Smart meters can be hacked to cut power bills
    Smart meters widely used in Spain can be hacked to under-report energy use, security researchers have found…

    nonetheless, some other bits worth noting, beginning with:

    23 May: UK Telegraph: No one’s noticed, but the Tories are quietly killing off the smart meter revolution
    By Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at the University of Cambridge
    Last week brought a rare example of the converse: a manifesto burying a huge policy change that will save every household in Britain fifty pounds a year.
    It’s lurking on page 60 of the Conservative offering: “everyone will be offered a smart meter by 2020”.
    If you blinked, you missed it. A national programme committed to install meters in 80pc of homes by 2020 has just become voluntary…

    Why not replace old meters that cost £15 and lasted 50 years with new meters that cost £50 and lasted only 15? The story was that if you could see how much electricity you were using you’d use less of it, and we could recoup the cost by building fewer power stations.
    When Ed Miliband become climate change secretary, he seized on this chance to save the planet.

    Three successive impact assessments had shown that smart meters would not be viable in Britain, but no matter: a new one was ordered which argued that smart meters could save enough energy to pay for themselves.
    Britain pressed the commit button, and promised Brussels to put smart meters in 80pc of homes by 2020.

    There was just one small problem. British electricity meters belong to the retailer, which has no incentive to help you use less of its product.

    Ontario and Germany are the same. In the former, a $2bn smart meter programme failed to save any energy, while Angela Merkel ordered an honest impact assessment and decided to leave well alone. The Miliband project quickly got into trouble…

    Contractors licked their lips. But while Centrica and Ovo already sell proprietary smart meters, the integrated national system Miliband dreamed of is still far away. The radio network won’t reach enough homes. The meters won’t communicate with appliances…

    So for a prime minister who wants to drive energy bills as low as possible, the sacred cow has to go.

    Otherwise every household in Britain will end up paying about fifty pounds a year more on their fuel bill, a regressive tax that would hit the elderly poor the worst.

    But how can a government kill a £20bn programme without getting roasted alive by the lobbyists? Easy: split the industry. Let companies who don’t install smart meters charge their customers less.
    And do it quietly in the middle of an election – when the lobbyists have no access to anyone. On June 9th it will be a done deal.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/no-ones-noticed-tories-quietly-killing-smart-meter-revolution/

    30

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall. forget the billions already wasted and go with something completely different?

    16 Jun: UK Times: Emily Gosden: Centrica exposes smart energy meters as dumb
    The “smart” energy meters due to be installed in every UK home are in fact “pretty dumb”, a senior executive at Centrica has said, suggesting a new type of meter that can monitor individual household appliances and identify problems should be rolled out instead.

    Charles Cameron, the British Gas owner’s director of technology, said it was trialling “super smart” meters in Cornwall and they could be ready to deploy more widely in six months.

    The sophisticated meters, made by Green Running, could identify the electrical usage of each household appliance, helping to optimise their power usage and even flagging faults, he said. “It’s looking at unusual spikes in your washing machine to say, ‘this device has a problem, it needs to be serviced’.”…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/centrica-exposes-smart-energy-meters-as-dumb-src3lvkbf

    read all:

    5 Jun: DigitalLook: Smart home market ‘worth billions’ to energy companies, but beware blockchain
    by Oliver Haill
    In their battle against price caps and as they search for new areas of growth, energy companies could be on the verge of tapping into a huge source of new revenue by accessing the ‘smart home’ market…

    British Gas owner Centrica, for example, could be eyeing an opportunity worth 23% of its market cap, according to the base case of analysts at Berenberg, or up to 37% on its ‘blue sky’ scenario.
    This British Gas having already launched its Hive smart thermostat and formed a partnership with Amazon’s Echo, the company appears to have a first-mover advantage.

    “We see the smart home as an opportunity to participate in additional revenues,” said Berenberg, “we do not see it as a threat to cannibalise existing revenues. If played correctly, the smart home could also enhance customer stickiness with corresponding savings, none of which we have modelled as potential upside.”

    “In terms of current smart home products and services, we think that Centrica’s proprietary smart home products sees it relatively well prepared to capitalise on opportunities here.”…
    https://www.digitallook.com/news/broker-recommendations/smart-home-market-worth-billions-to-energy-companies-but-beware-blockchain–2704771.html

    20

  • #
    pat

    followup “smart” meter comment, beginning with link to “16 Jun: UK Times: Emily Gosden: Centrica exposes smart energy meters as dumb”, has gone into moderation.

    10

  • #
    RB

    A SHIP-based power station anchored off Port Adelaide is being considered as part of a $360 million plan for a new state-owned generator to help cut prices and boost reliability…

    The Istanbul-based firm, Karpowership, has installed the barge or ship-mounted power plants in Ghana, Iraq, Lebanon, Indonesia, Zambia, and Mozambique.

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/turkish-firm-proposes-shipbased-power-station-for-port-adelaide/news-story/3eb28dde25e69d6cfca3c0fff53838ad

    30

    • #
      Peter C

      Ship based power generation!

      Ok as a stop gap measure, eg for disaster relief.

      The RAN ships HMAS Canberra and Adelaide have a specific capability to supply electrical power to shore in disaster scenarios. Not so great for normal power supply since the ships fuel supply willl soon run out ( unless nuclear powered, which does not apply to our ships).

      It would be symbolic to send HMAS Adelaide to Adelaide for the purpose of supplying emergency electrical power to shore. Unfortunatetly the ship cannot move from Sydney at present due to problems with its own electric propulsor pods.

      50

      • #
        Dennis

        Crazy political thinking to have conventionally powered ships in the RAN and ignoring the tried and proven nuclear power plants other countries install into their fighting ships.

        Same political backwater thinking as not proceeding with the last energy supply report that was handed to the Howard Coalition government recommending a large number of min-nuclear power plants dotted around Australia.

        20

    • #
      toorightmate

      Aren’t these “innovative” ideas just so much more exciting than a coal fired power station?
      Welcome to the Dumb Country.

      40

      • #
        Watt

        Do you have to be dumb to fall for a smart meter or just not paying attention.?

        20

        • #
          toorightmate

          My smart meter when I was a kid was “Turn the bloody lights off”.

          20

        • #
          Annie

          No choice…someone slipped it in while tenants lived in our place. I was not best pleased.

          00

          • #
            greggg

            It’s your home. You can have an electrician replace it with a conventional meter. Call the company that owns the smart meter and tell them to come and pick it up. Can they touch the meter if it’s owned by the homeowner?

            10

    • #
      yarpos

      “The Istanbul-based firm, Karpowership, has installed the barge or ship-mounted power plants in Ghana, Iraq, Lebanon, Indonesia, Zambia, and Mozambique.”

      Thats great company SA is considering keeping

      10

  • #
    Watt

    A great solution for 3rd. World countries.

    20

  • #
  • #
    Robber

    Some useful analysis.
    “With $90 billion spent on batteries and 4,000 MW of more wind farms, South Australia could be a totally renewable state, at least for electricity.”
    South Australia – a Renewable State?

    60

    • #
      Dennis

      Considering that recently the SA Electoral Commission revised electorate boundaries in SA which lessened the impact of the gerrymander Labor enjoys, meaning boundaries that favour Labor and penalise the Coalition which needed/needs much more than 50 per cent of the vote in many electorates to unseat Labor MPs, and that a court appeal by Labor against the boundary changes was lost, maybe next SA state election there will be renewal, hopefully.

      50

      • #
        toorightmate

        Dennis,
        I have held that hope for the past decade, but the dumbness of the average South Australian continues to amaze me.
        Please continue sending more and more GST – we need it to pay for our power.

        40

    • #
      Watt

      With enough of these things bolted to their ground perhaps SA could be propelled into the Southern Ocean. The interconnectors tethering them would need to be cut though.

      10

  • #
    pat

    15 Jun: ChinaDaily: China’s CGN a step closer to bringing its nuclear technology to UK
    By Chris Peterson and Wang Mingjie in London
    China’s goal of boosting its nuclear technology sector took a big step forward on Wednesday with the creation of three new companies in the UK by China General Nuclear Power Corporation
    The newentities are:Bradwell Power Corp, which will be responsible for the 100 percent Chinese-built Bradwell B nuclear plant; General Nuclear System Ltd, which will shepherd China’s Hualong technology through the exacting five-year UK approval process; and General Nuclear International, which will manage CGN’s projects in the UK…
    The United Kingdom will formally assess the Hualong One technology as part of a deal reached last year,in which Chinese investment will help build the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, in which France’s EDF is a major participant, and which will feature French technology.
    CGN and EDF have been working together for more than 30 years on nuclear development and construction in China…READ ALL
    http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2017-06/15/content_29748140.htm

    12 Jun: Platts: French energy transition on track as Macron cements power base in parliament
    * Carbon floor price expected as first policy action
    * Analysts say Eur30/mt carbon floor would add Eur5/MWh to power
    * Signs of pragmatism in nuclear issue as EDF/state goals seen aligning
    Full parliamentary support would make Macron’s energy plans easier to achieve with his policies seen as a progression of his predecessor Francois Hollande’s energy transition legislation despite signs of pragmatism emerging on the key question of nuclear reduction targets and the President ***less keen to stress the current goal of cutting nuclear’s share in the power mix to 50% by 2025…

    Instead, analysts have commented on an alignment of the state’s and state-owned nuclear operator EDF’s goals in terms of future energy policy with firm plans for a carbon floor price expected as first action items in an energy roadmap expected to be presented later this month by Macron’s new energy minister, the environmental campaigner Nicolas Hulot.

    “The arrival of Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee has been welcomed: understanding well the woes faced by EDF, the new French president is likely to have a pragmatic, realistic and overall supportive stance towards the nuclear operator in the context of the Energy Transition,” analysts at JP Morgan said last week in a note, adding that “we would expect a first lever of action to be the setup of a Eur30/mt CO2 floor in France.”

    According to the JP Morgan analysts, this would have a Eur5/MWh impact on wholesale power prices with further regulation needed to secure security of supply, which was the key stumbling block for this policy last year after Macron resigned as economy minister forming his “En Marche” movement.

    EDF, which has long called for the introduction of a UK-style carbon floor price in France, said last year that such a plan would lead to the closure of its remaining three coal-fired power plants.

    Macron in his election manifesto pledged to close the remaining French coal-fired power plants before the end of his term in 2022…READ ALL
    https://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/french-energy-transition-on-track-as-macron-cements-26751716

    10

  • #
    Dennis

    25th September, 2015 – The Turnbull government backs the United Nations’ “Agenda 2030” program at the 70th General Assembly in New York. The program is thinly veiled leftist-‘progressive’ ideology, and includes “gender equality”, “reduced inequality”, “inclusive institutions”, “sustainable agriculture”, “sustainable water management”, “sustainable energy”, “sustainable growth”, “sustainable industrialisation”, “sustainable cities”, “sustainable consumption”, “sustainable use of oceans”, “sustainable development”, “sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems”, etc.

    “Sustainable” is a code word for ‘artificially suppressed’ (and therefore more expensive) using “the environment” as the excuse.

    70

  • #
    Dennis

    Another UN based programme that Australian Local Government have signed onto, and, I understand, our big banks have too.

    http://oceania.iclei.org

    20

    • #
      Watt

      ICLEI is all about bypassing national elected governments & infiltrating its ideology at Local Govt. level by flattering the ‘social ‘ conscience & instilling ‘global ‘ aspiration in often naive local representatives . Its activities should be outlawed & the organisation proscribed as a new fifth column.
      “06.06.2017

      The U.S. withdraws from the Paris Agreement – ICLEI Reacts

      Statement by Gino Van Begin, ICLEI Secretary General
      “President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is out of step with reality and the current drive towards a global low-carbon transition. Making abundant use of ‘alternative facts’, he has painted the US and its citizens as victims of this groundbreaking Accord. On the contrary, the Paris Agreement and its fulfillment are the best chance for the US and the world to create green jobs and save millions of lives and billions of dollars, avoiding the worst case scenarios of climate inaction. Climate action is not going to stop.

      Local governments, in the U.S. and globally, will keep moving forward on clean energy, sustainable transport and resilience, as most countries have again pledged to do, from the most vulnerable to major emitters. A heavy burden falls now on the shoulders of local governments in the U.S. and all climate stakeholders worldwide, as the Trump administration fails to recognize the stark reality of climate change and the urgency of acting on it. It’s now imperative for all levels of government and non-state actors to build even stronger and wider coalitions for rapid implementation, to keep the world on the right track.”

      30

    • #
      Watt

      ICLEI is all about bypassing national elected governments & infiltrating its ideology at Local Govt. level by flattering the ‘social ‘ conscience & instilling ‘global ‘ aspiration in often naive local representatives . Its activities should be outlawed & the organisation proscribed as a new fifth column.

      “The U.S. withdraws from the Paris Agreement – ICLEI Reacts

      Statement by Gino Van Begin, ICLEI Secretary General
      “President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is out of step with reality and the current drive towards a global low-carbon transition. Making abundant use of ‘alternative facts’, he has painted the US and its citizens as victims of this groundbreaking Accord. On the contrary, the Paris Agreement and its fulfillment are the best chance for the US and the world to create green jobs and save millions of lives and billions of dollars, avoiding the worst case scenarios of climate inaction. Climate action is not going to stop.

      Local governments, in the U.S. and globally, will keep moving forward on clean energy, sustainable transport and resilience, as most countries have again pledged to do, from the most vulnerable to major emitters. A heavy burden falls now on the shoulders of local governments in the U.S. and all climate stakeholders worldwide, as the Trump administration fails to recognize the stark reality of climate change and the urgency of acting on it. It’s now imperative for all levels of government and non-state actors to build even stronger and wider coalitions for rapid implementation, to keep the world on the right track.”

      20

      • #
        Dennis

        What happened to the government by the people for the people concept?

        When did our elected representatives, members of parliaments and local government, become our masters who implement foreign policies created in the UN without asking for our approval?

        Don’t be surprised when these traitors decide to sign over control to the UN based world parliament without our approval claiming that treaties signed by past governments over the decades since the 1950s effectively give them that right, regardless of what we want.

        10

  • #
    pat

    16 Jun: CarbonBrief: Robert McSweeney: UK wind power can help meet peak winter demand, study says
    Analysing past wind speeds and electricity demand, the researchers show that average wind power generally increases with demand during the year. And while wind power does drop in cold, still winter conditions, it picks up again when we get the very coldest weather.
    This means wind power can help meet high and peak electricity demand during winter, the researchers say.

    The findings are “clearly good news” for the UK’s electricity supply, another scientist tells Carbon Brief, but due to the variability of wind power, ***energy suppliers would still need to be able to call on other sources of electricity to help meet demand…

    But does this mean that wind energy can contribute when the UK needs it most? That’s the question the new study, just published in Environmental Research Letters, aims to answer…

    To calculate historical average wind power, the researchers used a wind power model and a “reanalysis” dataset of wind speeds going back to the beginning of 1979. Reanalysis is where scientists feed observed climate data into a model to recreate past global weather patterns…

    The black line shows how average wind power and demand vary across the whole year. Broadly, average wind power goes up as electricity demand increases, the study finds. This relationship doesn’t hold when you get up to very high electricity demand, but we’ll come back to that shortly…READ ON PLUS LINK TO STUDY
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/uk-wind-power-can-help-meet-peak-winter-demand-study

    18 Jun: DailyTelegraph: Peta Credlin: Climate change zealots need to get real
    WELL, now we know.
    The biggest deniers in the whole climate change debate are those who think we can have affordable power, lower emissions and a reliable network.
    We can’t…READ ON
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/climate-change-zealots-need-to-get-real/news-story/68b4abe189f80355b8fcaf5230ef482a

    btw, when listening to people calling in to radio talk shows this week complaining about the rises in their electricity bills, I was amazed no-one was mentioning the extra costs that will be incurred when supermarkets and other businesses factor in their added electricity costs.

    10

  • #
    TdeF

    In the last few years, people talk of overreach. That is when something has gone too far.

    At the start of the 20th century we were unaware of the dangers of asbestosis, radon, cadmium, lead, arsenic, nitrous oxides, radioactive material. At Hepburn Springs in Victoria, a health spa, they advertised radon, electric shock, ozone and radioactive treatments for illness and to improve health and well being. Thanks to activists and advances in chemistry, medicine and biology we realised these things were in fact dangerous and we finally understood cancer and its causes. Environmentalism was born.

    However as the search to identify pollution continued, the segue of carbon dioxide to warming to climate change to pollution is total overreach.

    CO2 is not only natural, invisible, harmless, essential, a consequence of all life and in short supply, there is no aspect of it which is pollution

    Put simply, if CO2 is pollution, what is not pollution?

    It is depressing then to read editorials in the Herald Sun and the Australian where the editor talk about polluters and pollution and the need to do something when they simply mean Carbon Dioxide. If scientists were asked if CO2 was polluting, they would say no. It is a ridiculous idea.

    So if there is one great success of Al Gore and Tim Flannery and the other non scientists, it is the vilification of CO2 as the greatest moral challenge of a generation. All things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small are made from CO2. There is no less polluting molecule than CO2 in our world. To pay trillions to fight CO2 as a pollutant is beyond insane and has nothing to do with science.

    [Editorial discretion applied] Fly

    90

    • #
      TdeF

      Ironically people thought the newly discovered O3 molecule as so healthy, in Melbourne there was the steamer Ozone, the hotel Ozone by the beach in Queenscliffe. Now we know it is carcinogenic and a byproduct of high voltage. Many other innocuous chemicals were also found to be carcinogenic, including the dye used to fake the Piltdown man skull which had the unfortunate side effect of killing the culprit. However it is beyond logic that anyone could call CO2 dangerous pollution and want none of it, even if mankind is responsible for only 3% of what is emitted every year and all of it subject to massive exchange and equilibrium.

      After all CO2 existed before we did. The levels were set by balances which we have not overwhelmed with our 3%. There is no reason to believe we can unilaterally increase CO2 levels and the evidence of real science is that we have not and cannot.

      40

    • #
      yarpos

      Ive never understood why the more radical warmists havent gone after carbonated beverages and dry ice used for trivial purposes. They are big on useless gestures.

      10

  • #
    pat

    ***NYT’s UN Bureau Chief (Oxford Uni, UCLA Berkeley-educated), Somini Sengupta, somehow manages to keep the Norway “climate leader” meme going, despite saying current oil exports represent 10 times Norway’s domestic carbon emissions! and so much more oil is on the way.

    17 Jun: NYT: Both Climate Leader and Oil Giant? A Norwegian Paradox
    By SOMINI SENGUPTA
    While Norway wants to wean its own citizens off fossil fuels, it remains one of the world’s biggest oil producers and is revving up production, almost all of it for export. So even as the country tries to cut emissions and clean up its own carbon ledger at home, it is effectively doing the opposite abroad.

    Spurred by attractive state subsidies, the Norwegian oil company Statoil is chasing after new oil and gas fields in the Arctic. Nearly all of the supply is destined for export — and to show up in the carbon emissions of countries that burn Norwegian oil and gas.

    There’s a lot of it, too. Peter Erickson, a senior scientist with the Stockholm Environment Institute, a research organization, found that emissions from Norway’s oil exports this year will be 10 times as much as Norway’s domestic carbon emissions.

    “Norway has set out to be a global leader in climate action, yet continued expansion of oil and gas production ***COULD eclipse the benefits of Norway’s domestic emission reduction efforts,” Mr. Erickson and his colleague Adrian Down wrote in a recent paper…
    …oil and gas are vital to Norway’s economy, representing 12 percent of gross domestic product and more than a third of Norwegian exports, according to the nation’s petroleum directorate…

    Norway is in the vanguard of that scramble (for Arctic oil), trailed by Russia, Canada and the United States…
    In May, Statoil began work on five new exploration wells in the Barents Sea, and the company is bullish on the prospects…

    A spokesman, Morten Eek, said that Statoil takes great care to mitigate against environmental risks, that its extraction process leaves a smaller carbon footprint than the global average, and that the company saw no reason to stop exploring now.
    “There will be demand for oil and gas even in a 2-degree scenario going forward,” Mr. Eek said.
    In any case, he pointed out, it can trade its emissions allowances across Europe, as part of the European Union’s emissions cap-and-trade system, meant to create incentives to reduce a company’s carbon footprint…

    Norway has sought to reduce its carbon footprint in other ways, too. It has divested its enormous sovereign wealth fund from coal…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/world/europe/norway-climate-oil.html?_r=0

    10

  • #
    Rod McLaughlin

    https://climatefeedback.org

    A new site claiming to debunk climate change denial

    10

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      “A new site claiming to debunk climate change denial”

      The Poynter Institute
      801 Third Street South
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      (727) 821—9494

      Since its founding in 1975, The Poynter Institute has had one goal: to elevate journalism. More than 40 years later, our role in strengthening democracy has never been more important.

      John Poynter, Jimmie Maxwell’s student, is spinning in his grave.

      20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Our goal is to help readers know which news to trust.

      That is awfully like, “Our soul purpose is to inform our readers of the truth”, which was a byline of a Communist newspaper in the UK, during the 1960’s.

      I guess, what goes around, comes around. There used to be a newspaper in New Zealand called, “The Truth”, which published anything but.

      But best of all, is a book, written by Bob Jones, a multi-millionaire property developer and political party leader (where have I seen that recently), who wrote a book called “Real Facts”, which was a total send-up of organisations like this one. Bob Jones used to say, “The first lie, is the one that tells you that you won’t be lied to, and it all goes down hill from there.”

      20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Thanks Rereke:

        I wondered where they got the tag “The Truth”. It seems the Greens love recycling.

        By the way, is Rereke your real name or a Nom de guerre? (It can’t be a Nom de Plume as Kiwis don’t have plumes.

        10

        • #
          ROM

          .
          Правда; “Pravda” = “Truth” in english as she is spoke.

          “Pravda” was the official news organ of the Communist Party of the USSR.

          After the USSR broke up in 1991, the journalists at Pravda split into two groups which both now publish news papers under the name of Pravda.

          Pravda.ru is the privately owned and run news sheet.

          And there were a couple of Sydney and Melbourne news sheets bannered as “Truth” which only ceased publication as late as 1995.

          30

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy”

    More at

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/17/daily-telegraph-there-is-no-such-thing-as-affordable-renewable-energy/

    50

    • #
      Dennis

      Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

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

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

      Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

      20

      • #

        Come on, Dennis.

        At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres

        A quick Google and she said that at least as far back as Feb 2015. I haven’t bothered to look for when she actually said it.

        I agree that what she said is sickening, but she didn’t say it last week.

        Naughty, naughty Dennis! 🙂

        10

  • #
    James in Melbourne

    This has me absolutely flummoxed. How can Bloomberg New Energy Finance, even with its known bias, make these claims about the cost of renewables? “Cheap wind and solar power will make Australia a magnet for energy-intensive industries?” Over to you Jo, Tony from Oz, Graeme, TdeF et al – how is this possible? Whose numbers are wrong? Everything I read here indicates to me that when intermittency and requirement for back-up is factored-in, renewables cannot compete with caseload coal and nuclear. So why is Bloomberg so adamant? Any help with this gratefully accepted, as I know this is going to be thrown at me.

    http://www.afr.com/news/cheap-wind-solar-will-make-australia-a-magnet–bloomberg-20170615-gwrwat

    40

    • #
      Analitik

      Bloomberg has NEVER acknowledged the role subsidies have played in making renewables “cheap” and ignoring the effect on end user electricity prices and like to pretend that intermittency can be dealt with by sufficient political will (to install batteries, microgrids, demand response etc).

      Just accept that they’re lying and move on.

      50

      • #
        Analitik

        Besides the other points people have made here, there is one major “fact” underpinning the Bloomberg (and other renewables advocates) analysis on how “cheap” renewables are and this is the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCoE). This measure purports to provide a comparison of the cost of the electricity produced by a plant/farm over its lifetime – ie an average cost of investment, fuel and maintenance per MWh (or joule or calorie or however else you want to measure energy).
        http://www.renewable-energy-advisors.com/learn-more-2/levelized-cost-of-electricity/

        There are several ways in which renewables advocates make this measure work in their favor.

        The first is to grossly underestimate the lifespan of thermal plants – they are often given a forty year lifespan which smacks in the face of general experience (Hazelwood was 56 years old when closed with minimal investment over the last 2 decades) – and over estimate the lifespan of renewable generators (wind turbines are often given a lifespan of around 25 years which is far in excess of practice).

        The second is to overstate fuel costs for thermal plants (you will see wild inflationary calculations for this) and understate maintenance costs for renewable generators (never mind all those gearbox replacements, oil changes, shed blades, tracker replacements, solar panel cleaning, solar field weeding, etc)

        Thirdly, the cost of intermittency is grossly understated and the efficacy of battery storage grossly overstated.

        Here is the Bloomberg New Energy Finance page describing their analysis – https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/
        You can download their executive summary if you like but the figures underlying their analysis is only available to “BNEF clients”. I haven’t downloaded the summary as I’m certain it is loaded with “facts” that cannot be proven due to assumptions hidden in their detailed analysis.

        30

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          I think Britain’s oldest wind turbine was removed recently. It was 23 years old, but had not been producing for at least 2 years, and presumably at a reduced rate then.
          I spent 25 years with fibreglass resin companies so I like to think I know a little about it. I have been saying for years that as turbines got bigger, the manufacturers would have to go to stronger, more expensive materials for the blades, so I was interested to see reports that the blades at one of the USA’s latest eyesore contained bisphenol. This indicates they contain epoy resin, which is harder to work with than the originally used polyester, but gives much more strength if pressure autoclaved at 150℃.
          There seems to be a hysterical reaction to the mention of bisphenol A among the greenery. As cured epoxy it is quite hard to get the bisphenol out; the recommended analytical method involved boiling hydroiodic acid at 120℃ which is something not readily available. A large usage not usually known was in the thin film baked on as can lining, where it was co-reacted with phenolic resin. I think this started in the 1940’s and lasted through to about 2000 (in the USA, about 1980 Australia). As far as I am aware there were no recorded cases of breakdown of the film, as the combination was both acid and alkali resistant.
          But the idle thought struck me that the hysterical reaction to the name bisphenol by the greenery might be manipulated into an adversion to turbines. Just a few word in some of the green blogs ‘and now they want to spread bisphenol all over the country” sort of thing. They never seem to check facts before frothing at the mouth, so their enthusiasm for turbines might be dimmed. What do readers think?

          30

    • #
      TdeF

      Flummoxed too. Energy intensive industries are closing along with reliable coal power stations. Those that remain are receiving hundreds of millions in secret State subsidies just to keep the jobs and cities alive.
      The current RET carbon tax is $400/tonne for gas and $200/tonne for coal and it is not even a tax and as far as Turnbull’s government is concerned, nothing to do with them. The billions go straight out of the country. The last rescue for Portland’s Alcoal smelter involved everyone. No one can afford to let it close but it makes no economic sense to keep it open. We are paying our state and Federal taxes to subsidize jobs in Alcoa.

      As Paul O’Malley the head of Bluescope said recently, the price of energy in the US for making steel is nearly 1/10th of that in Australia. It is an energy ‘catastrophe’. The new Korean owners of Arrium are going to build their own gas power station. The reason? They will not have to pay the RET as they are not selling power, just using it. However if Turnbull brings in his (Carbon Dioxide) emissions tax, that will be the end of smelting in Australia as CO2 is part of the process of turning oxides into metals.

      What are the other energy intensive industries? No cars, almost no ships, no aircraft and no smelting, no electronics. Where are these new ‘energy intensive’ industries? What do they do?

      So why would Bloomberg say such an incredibly wrong thing? No idea at all.

      80

      • #
        David Maddison

        It’s simply amazing that such a small proportion of power from windmills can cause such huge costs to electricity consumers that will destroy an entire economy.

        The people who thought this plan up were Marxist evil geniuses.

        82

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      James,
      Wind costs $92 per MWh according to green commentators. The claim that it is “cheap” is because it is subsidised, currently at about $80 per MWh through the certificates issued (free) by the Federal Government, which the electricity retailers have to buy (and pass on the cost to their customers).
      The cost of wind is made up of Capital cost (to build the things) and operating cost (maintenance, payment to land holders, local authorities, propaganda to schools etc.). The latter is about $24 per MWh.
      In operation wind electricity has priority, i.e. the grid wholesalers HAVE to buy it regardless when it is available. That means conventional producers e.g. coal fired lose sales but have to keep operating to be ready to provide backup when the wind drops, so their costs are about the same but their income is less. So they increase their sales price to stay in business, so the base or wholesale price goes up e.g. from $40 per MWh to $60 or more, meaning that wind makes more for their sales. So at the present (roughly) $100 a MWh the wind farm operators are getting around $180 ( of which $24 goes to operating costs, $68 pays for the building cost and $88 is profit). Do you wonder why there is enthusiasm for wind and other renewables.
      As to the costs of intermittency and backup they are loaded onto the conventional generation methods. And as the amount of renewables increases those costs become loaded onto less conventional generation, so it becomes more expensive again. That is why the coal fired station in SA shut down.
      If renewables had to pay the cost of backup when they stopped generating, or if the subsidies were cancelled then most of them would go out of business. Under the current setup they are very profitable and that is what Bloomberg is so supportive.

      As for the Finkel report it isn’t all good news for renewables, and if adopted the 42% target won’t ever be reached because the price of electricity will climb with many businesses shutting down, the retail sector suffering because people won’t have any money left to spend, and the country goes into a depression. Then there will be a revolt by the customers/voters and whoever is in government will face massive demonstrations and lose office for a generation or more. And it won’t always be the Left that gains, see Spain, Ireland, Hungary, Poland. Austria, Germany, France, Holland have all seen a rise in support for right wing parties too.

      80

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        James:

        One thing I forgot but you are aware how the electricity market operates are you? Basically we have a 3 layer system.
        At the base are the electricity generators, coal, gas, hydro and renewables. Their output is sold at the base or wholesale rate (or ore correctly rates because various State governments have done special deals with large users.
        Then there are the various GRID authorities who maintain the transmission lines, transformers and other gear necessary to get the electricity to the end users. They are expected, indeed required by law, to maintain a steady supply at the right frequency, voltage and amperage. There is an overriding controller the AEMO which looks after the flow between States.
        Then there are the Retailers who supply you with the bill. Mostly they merely collect the meter readings from the local Grid authority. Their major importance is buying the Large scale Generation Certificates from the Wind and Solar producers, as required by the Commonwealth Govt. (under the RET legislation) which issues them free to the producers. The cost of these is added onto your bill. (There is one minor quibble in that retailers who don’t buy sufficient LGCs have to pay a fine of $65 per MWh. You are probably wondering why any retailer would bother buying a LGC then, but the LGC’s are deductible as a business expense whereas the fines are not, so not much difference, but if the price of LGCs goes up to near its top limit $92 then it may be cheaper to pay the fines, as several retailers did earlier this year.) The LGCs are traded and there are forward trades available to 2020.

        In the old days all these functions were carried out by the various State electricity Departments. When it was decided that the States could sell off their electricity businesses the various functions were split up to “encourage competition”.
        The point I wanted to make is that all these sectors can charge you not only the costs involved but a profit as well. So if the basic price is forced up by renewables disrupting the conventional producers, those conventional produces might work on a percentage profit and charge a bit extra e.g if was costing them $35 to produce they were selling at $40, and their cost to produce was forced up to $52.5 they would like to charge $60.
        The Grid supplier also wants his bit of profit. So if they was getting $50 at the low price which included $5 profit, there would be a feeling that they can charge more and stick a bit say $7 profit on top. This is where the Gold Plating of the System claim by politicians anxious to shift the blame comes in. Gillard allowed the Grid people to reclaim the expense of upgrading the system along with a substantial incentive (profit). The upgrading was necessary mainly to allow renewables suppliers to set up at the back of Woop Woop and be connected, as well as making up for some neglect in the days of State control where the State Treasuries wanted dividends but the Government didn’t want the voters upset by rising electricity bills. That latter worry no longer applies as the Governments hink that they can now blame rising bills on some one else.
        Then the Retailers will want a set percentage of the money the customer send them, so the old $90 cost has risen to, say $127, and they were charging $180, this now becomes $254. (For kWh divide by 10 and call it cents e.g. instead of the old 18¢ you now get to pay 25.4¢.)

        All these sums are just for illustration purposes, and are probably incorrect, but you will see how your bill shoots up. All based on the assumption so popular in Canberra that the ordinary serf has lots of money to spend on their schemes.

        50

  • #
    ROM

    I am somewhat surprised that this study found in Phys Org [ Feb. 2017 ] in this case,and in other science based internet outlets, was not really discussed or even commented on in any media or even in the high profile skeptic blogs that I peruse regularly.

    The implications of this study are immense with regards to the Renewable Energy industry and the politics surrounding the cult like, utterly irrational and economically and engineering impossible belief in the ability to accomplish climate change mitigation strategies by going entirely down the Renewable Energy path.

    I suspect that this study has never been promoted in the MSM at any level as from just about every angle it slays the irrational beliefs that humanity can in some way, through the so called renewable energy replacing fossil fueled power generation, can somehow control or alter the global climate into a climate that is perfect for humanity and still maintain a increasing level of economic performance and therefore better living standards for the citizens involved.

    Of course the suitability of the altered climate to suit humanity and environmental demands depends very much on who you might be, who you are, where you live and what you expect in any altered climate .
    .
    Modifying the climate to suit a particular power wielding group [ greens ??? ] would be dead sure trigger for a major conflicts across every nation and peoples on Earth if there ever was a way of controlling and creating a man made global climate as each and every race and nation demanded that the climate be changed and conformed to suit their own demands and requirements.
    .
    ———————-
    .
    So why isn’t this study below being publicised?

    1 / It sure makes the politicians who are promoting renewable energy and pouring vast amounts of OPM ie; tax payers money into innumerable renewable energy scams look extremely stupid and ignorant in that what they are doing is directly contrary to the reasons they promised before being elected, to promote the economy and thereby promote the well being of the voter and the community that elected them into power.

    2 / It makes the entire mass media almost without exeception look extremely stupid, biased, bigoted, ignorant and not at all interested in endeavouring to find the facts and the truth behind the whole climate change and renewable energy scam.
    And reinforces the growing public belief in that the MSM is working to its own agenda which is beneficial to interests that the media supports and which the media both derives its income from and whose media personnel are totally bigoted against the general interests of the citizenery they claim to be part of .

    3 / It almost completely destroys any vesitage left of the miniscule reality that somehow the introduction of renewable energy on a mass scale into an economy is going to be of benefit to everybody concerned.
    The study in fact very strongly reinforces the increasing belief in the fact that it is only a few wealthy and morally and ethically free, scam level individuals with ready access to the political and media sources of power are the prime benefactors of the grossly misdirected governmental mandated largesse so readily heaped onto the near criminal level scammers of the Renewable Energy industry.
    All at the cost of rapidly pauperising a growing mass of ordinary citizens at the bottom of the income scale.
    .

    For those reasons and many more, reports such as this one that reflects the fact that the more Renewable Energy penetrates into a nation’s power generation structure, the greater are the economic costs and losses for the nation involved and the faster is the downhill trend of that nation’s economic performance with the consequent losses and reductions in the standards of living for that nation’s citizens.
    .

    Certainly the classic case of the truth of this report can be seen in the de-industrialisation of South Australia followed we hope not by Victoria in the near future if dingaling Despot Dan Andrews and his current FW’s in government proceed with their programs for the almost total replacement of fossil fuels for power generation in Victoria with the so called and grandiosely misnamed and health destroying “Renewable Energy” wind turbines.

    Quotes from the study follow and it will be noted that all the boxes on the green caste “predicted” [ ?? ] evils of the destruction of the hallowed “environment” by a better economic performance and therefore better living standards for humanity are suitably ticked.
    So their munificent funding for many more years is thus firmly ensured.
    ——————-
    .
    Study suggests choice between green energy or economic growth

    Poverty, unemployment and zero economic growth are the likely outcome for countries which choose renewable energy sources over fossil fuels, according to a study.

    Energy from fossil fuels appears to ignite economies into greater and more sustained growth, whereas energy from wind and solar power not only fails to enhance or promote economic growth, it actually causes economies to flat-line.

    The results, from an in-depth study of more than 100 countries over 40 years, pose a serious ethical dilemma, according to the lead author, economist Dr Nikolaos Antonakakis, Visiting Fellow at the University of Portsmouth Business School and Associate Professor at Webster Vienna University.

    Dr Antonakakis said: “Put simply, the more energy a country consumes, the more it pollutes the environment, the more its economy grows.
    And the more the economy grows, the more energy consumption it needs, and so on.

    “This poses big questions.
    Should we choose high economic growth, which brings lower unemployment and wealth for many, but which is unsustainable for the environment?

    “Or should we choose low or zero economic growth, which includes high unemployment and a greater degree of poverty, and save our environment?”

    Dr Antonakakis and co-authors, Dr Ioannis Chatziantoniou, at the University of Portsmouth, and Dr George Filis, at Bournemouth University, set out to
    study whether environmentally friendly forms of energy consumption were more likely to enhance economic growth.

    In the light of recent policies designed to promote the use of green energy, including tax credits for the production of renewable energy and reimbursements for the installation of renewable energy systems, the authors predicted that environmentally friendly forms of energy consumption would enhance economic growth.

    Dr Antonakakis said: “It turned out not to be the case.”

    They argue that societies now need to rethink their approach toward environmental sustainability, and strongly question the efficacy of the recent trend in many countries to promote renewable energy resources as a reliable alternative for helping achieve and maintain good economic growth.

    The researchers gathered data on gross domestic product (GDP), CO2 emissions and total and disaggregated energy consumption for 106 countries from 1971-2011.

    The results were the same across all countries, from rich to poor.

    Dr Chatziantoniou said: “It’s a very thought-provoking result and could, in a roundabout way, help explain why no country or state has yet managed to fully convert to renewable energy.
    “It could also be that we have not yet learned how to fully exploit the benefits of renewable energy – we don’t yet have the level of know-how.”

    Of the countries studied, not one showed good economic growth while promoting and investing in renewable energy.

    70

    • #
      Peter C

      To ROM at #37

      The authors seem anxious to back pedal on their own result:

      Dr Chatziantoniou said:
      “It could also be that we have not yet learned how to fully exploit the benefits of renewable energy – we don’t yet have the level of know-how.”

      The authors say the question now needs to be how should countries, especially rich ones which produce and therefore pollute a lot, protect the environment and create well balanced, sustainable societies.
      Dr Filis said: “We should probably start considering different economic growth paradigms, such as those of de-growth or a-growth, which could lead to a sustainable future without sacrificing economic resources and increasing unemployment….
      “The realisation that GDP isn’t a successful measure of well-being, should be a turning point for societies.”

      Dr Antonakakis said: “The findings suggest we should wean ourselves off using GDP as an important measure of success and wealth.

      Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-choice-green-energy-economic-growth.html#jCp

      10

      • #
        ROM

        Peter C @ #37.1

        Yeh! They do seem to be keen to back pedal on their own results.

        So have a look at this statement from the above quote;

        Dr Antonakakis and co-authors, Dr Ioannis Chatziantoniou, at the University of Portsmouth, and Dr George Filis, at Bournemouth University, set out to study whether environmentally friendly forms of energy consumption were more likely to enhance economic growth.

        And there are three authors , Antonakakis being an economist which says quite a lot for the reported outcomes of the study.
        So who pushed hardest for the real results to be published regardless of niceties that might have run counter to what they and their backers [ maybe renewable energy proponents ? ] thought they were going to prove.

        And where were those results first published as the policies and orientation of that original publishing source will have a significant effect on whats published and what is canned permanently.

        Now if the results of the study had been published in one of the innumerable climate journals of increasingly ill repute, the results would have been suitably massaged to conform with the journal’s biases or just canned and dismissed.
        .

        But the study being a financial study this time on the link between economics of nations and Renewable Energy in those nations and not a climate linked study, mean’t that any deliberately misleading results published and linked to the study would have been proffessional suicide for the authors as when real money is placed on the basis of results from financial research then the punters who have their money on the line get a mite upset if they find out they are being fed a pack of bull by supposedly qualified researchers.

        The researchers have actually cross purposed their own study,
        1 / the financial impact of Renewable Energy on a nation’s economy.

        2 / And then the red herring or was it a major slip up, the connecting of the dangerous climate change meme to what is really a real time and not modelled study on how a particular technology interacts with and affects a real, operating economy, ie; economic research.

        Possibly the funding came via some climate catastrophe funding source and so it had to be catered for and accomodated in the press release.

        .

        20

  • #
    Peter C

    Not possible

    Ps the article is pay walled so I was not able to read beyond the first paragraph.

    10

    • #
      pat

      Peter C –

      for what it’s worth, here’s a negative response to the study. note: author, also, has not read it:

      8 Feb: CleanTechnica: Joshua S. Hill: New Study Proposes Choice Between Green Energy Or Economic Growth, Gets It Completely Wrong
      Earlier this month, news of a report reached my ears that proposed there was no way to have green energy and economic growth, and that poverty, unemployment, and “zero economic growth are the likely outcome for countries which choose renewable energy sources over fossil fuels.”

      The report was authored by economist Dr Nikolaos Antonakakis, Visiting Fellow at the University of Portsmouth Business School and Associate Professor at Webster Vienna University, and Dr Ioannis Chatziantoniou, at the University of Portsmouth, and Dr George Filis, at Bournemouth University. Their report — which is said to have been published in the journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews — and in the article abstract, includes this little gem…READ ON

      In the end, it is ‘scientific evidence’ such as this which betrays the underpinnings of independent science. I will not out-and-out claim that there is some link between the authors and fossil fuel interests, but the decisions necessary to reach a conclusion such as this speak volumes either about the integrity or the intelligence of the authors.
      CHECK COMMENTS WHICH INCLUDE A LINK TO: Solar-Plus-Storage Could Increase Consumption and Emissions, Study Suggests
      https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/08/new-study-proposes-choice-green-energy-economic-growth-gets-completely-wrong/

      9 Jun: Electrek: Fred Lambert: Tesla starts Powerwall 2 installations in Australia
      Australia is currently one of the largest markets for energy storage, which is why it’s not surprising that it is one of the first to receive Tesla’s Powerwall 2 home battery pack, albeit late.
      We have learned that the first installations have started down under and one of the first homeowners to receive the device gave an account of the process…

      He added that Tim (from Tesla) said that they currently have “thousands” of orders in Australia for the Powerwall 2 and that the backlog is about 2 months for someone ordering now.
      It’s not surprising considering Australia is one of the places where the Powerwall 2’s economics make the most sense. Some homeowners have calculated that it can pay for itself in 6 years.
      https://electrek.co/2017/06/09/tesla-powerwall-2-installations-australia/

      16 Jun: RenewEconomy: Tesla to roll out “multiple” Powerpacks in NSW battery storage win
      By Sophie Vorrath
      US electric vehicle and battery maker Tesla has been tapped by NSW network operator TransGrid to deliver several of its grid-scale Powerpack battery storage systems to support remote dispatch of demand response and the smoothing of variable solar generation.
      The job, part of a winning tender in 2016, will deploy the California company’s 250kW/500kWh Powerpack systems, with the first installation slated for the City of Sydney’s Alexandra Canal Works depot.
      Tesla says that grid-scale battery system will provide the depot with savings in energy costs while also boosting the City of Sydney’s carbon reduction efforts, as it aims for cuts of 70 per cent by 2030…
      So far in Australia, Tesla has delivered Powerpack installations of 190kWh at Dream Factory in Footscray, Melbourne, and 95kWh at a school in Rockhampton, Queensland…

      30

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    When people are free to think, innovate, create, and keep the results of their actions, they invariably will be increasingly productive or soon will learn what it takes to be productive. To the degree that government respects the individual rights of the governed and interferes only with violations of individual right, the economy improves in almost exponential proportion. This is true in theory, practice, and in historical experience.

    To the degree that government decides that the voluntary and free interaction among individuals does not perform as they wish, fantasize, or want and interferes with the voluntary and free interaction among individuals, the economy fails even faster than it would improve under a rights respecting and protecting government. This too is true in theory, practice,and in historical experience.

    With very few exceptions, the latter has been what governments have chosen since the first governments were formed. If the goal of the government were truly economic growth and the advance of the welfare of its citizens, they would not interfere with the citizens’ voluntary interactions. Yet they do so with increasing negative impact upon the individual’s ability to sustain his own life through his own thoughts and consequent actions.

    When Peter becomes rich because he freely offered his goods and services to others and others freely chose to buy them, we tend to say he robbed his customers and should pay for his transgressions. When the government, by force (aka taxes et.al.) takes what Peter has produced and gives it to Paul, we call it a “good thing”. This even though Paul made bad choices, expended little to no thought nor effort, and failed in his responsibility to earn his keep as a direct consequence. At the same time we complain that there are no jobs or the jobs that exist don’t pay a living wage. The green blob steps in, agitates the discontent, and we demand that government interfere even more into the mutually voluntary interactions among individuals. We are doing a damn poor job of pursuing a growing economy and becoming increasingly wealthy.

    Who is at fault here: the government, We the People, or the green blob? The government and the green blob are simply being themselves and do what they do. Sadly, it seems We the People are also simply being themselves and will do as they do. There is enough blame to be shared in ample proportions.

    As Pogo once said: “We have met the enemy and the enemy are us!”

    Since we are the cause and therefor the only source of the cure, what are we going to do about it? If not you, who?

    30

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      One thing is clear, you cannot change other people. All you can do is change yourself but even that is difficult. You can change by changing your basic assumptions, your way of thinking, and the nature of the choices and actions you take.

      Since change happens at the individual level, one thing to do is be the change you want to see happen. You must decide for yourself what that change must be and make it happen for yourself. If the results are good, others might follow. Then again, maybe not. At least your part of the change will have happened.

      60

  • #
  • #
    john

    The ocean is not rising in Louisiana, USA…the land is subsiding.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170615100624.htm

    20

  • #
    PeterS

    I don’t know what more evidence needs to be presented to prove Australians are fools. Here we are being told our electricity prices are going up significantly yet again and the people don’t appear to blink an eye lid. What they don’t realize is this sends a signal yet again to overseas investors we are fools and will pay any price for our power. Their mouths must be watering now at the thought of more coming to Australia and building even more renewables to milk us of more money. Looks like we are stuck in a mode that will send power costs to the moon. Then people will scratch their heads wondering why we are losing industries, jobs and eventually our economy goes into a nose dive to a crash landing. It’s obvious why right now but Australians are too dumb to see it. Then there is the issue of what’s it all for given it’s now understood moving so much to renewables will have negligible impact at best on the climate. Stupid is as stupid does. Instead what are we seeing most people complaining about? The weather, housing prices, too many adds on TV, road traffic conditions, work loads, Trump, and various other things. Some of these are valid complaints but obviously there is much more milking of our money the renewables industry can do. One would have thought Australians are too rich and can afford to have much higher power costs. Let’s see how far it goes before Australians start to squeal en mass.

    50

  • #
    Bribiejohn

    Matt Ridley in an article in the British Spectator:

    As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.
    It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.
    A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

    60

  • #

    ever heard of Soros? UN/ Rothschild/ global warming/ muslim immigration/ Clinton and Podesta–that guy links hard to all these. Up to 250,000 people/year drop off radar to become illegal immigrants in Britain; meet a globalist

    01

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    When in the history of engineering has such a visually polluting, unstable, unreliable, randomly varying, expensive power source ever had so much effort and money applied to harvest it, especially as the consequences of its use are so negative?

    I can think of no other example.

    Normally an appropriate engineering solution is found such as a coal, gas, hydro or nuclear power station.

    52

  • #
    Peter C

    Who are We!

    I started a list of all the individual commentators on the JoNova blog because I was hoping to get an idea of the total readership.

    There maybe a lot of people who read the blog, but never comment. I hope so!

    None the less the total list of commentators, summed over 5 blog posts is just 233.
    I count you as my blog friends.

    50

    • #
      David Maddison

      I find it very satisfying to be on this blog with so many interesting and intelligent people but it causes me frustration because I know there are people (us) who know what’s going on and understand the civilisation-destroying power of windmills and solar but we can’t can’t stop them (yet).

      82

      • #

        David, you mention this:

        ….. it causes me frustration…..

        I’m certain that’s the feeling for most of us.

        I can’t wait for the penny to drop with the most neglected thing in all this electrical power generation debate, the simple load curve for power consumption, and, for the life of me, I cannot understand how no one has discovered it yet.

        Soon, someone’s going to see it and ask the most obvious of all questions.

        They’ll see the minimum power consumption of 18,000MW a level it never falls below, (except on Christmas morning when it falls to 16000MW) and the question will be.

        “Where does that come from?”

        Only then will people begin to wake up and realise that they have been misled all this time.

        You all must wonder how I can be so confident, but that one simple chart tells me (screams out, actually) that coal fired power still has a very long way to run yet.

        When you have so much electrical power required absolutely, then it has to come from the only source actually capable of delivering that amount of power.

        People will be looking around for rocks to hide under when that question gets asked.

        Tony.

        131

        • #

          4AM this morning, Monday 19th June 2017, the total for NSW, Qld, Vic, SA, and Tas – 18,055MW.

          Solar – Zero

          Wind – 600MW

          Total renewables – 3.3% of requirement.

          Tony.

          101

          • #
            ROM

            From The Australian Power Project

            For that 600MW from wind in Australia we paid nearly $600 million dollars in subsidies in 2016..
            .

            WIND FARM OPERATORS PAID TO FAIL TO TUNE OF $600 MILLION [ 27 February, 2017 ]

            Almost $600 million was gifted by the Federal Government to the operators of windfarms over the last twelve months.

            Renewable energy certificates on the Australian Clean Energy Regulator website confirm that the money was paid to windfarm operators around the country including the nine windfarms in South Australia that failed during last September’s state-wide blackout.

            Of these funds, more than $200 million was given to windfarm operators in South Australia which have suffered debilitating blackouts over the last six months as a result of the State’s decision to invest in renewables while shutting down their coal-fired power stations.

            “These subsidies reveal the true extent of the leg up that is being provided to windfarm operators by the Australian taxpayer. The size of the subsidies is truly shocking when you consider the intermittent nature of renewable energy. As South Australians have learned the hard way, when the wind stops blowing the state becomes vulnerable to financially crippling blackouts,” says Nathan Vass, CEO of the Australian Power Project.

            Renewable subsidies for windfarm operators reached AU$588.7 million in 2016, with approximately 12.6 million large scale generation certificates (LGCs) recorded on the Australian Government’s Clean Energy Regulator website.
            LGCs are a key mechanism for meeting the current Federal Renewable Energy Target of 23.5% and are gifted to renewable energy generators in return for producing electricity.
            These certificates are a “bonus payment” to windfarm operators who also sell the energy they produce to electricity retailers.

            “While LGCs exist, investment will continue to favour renewable energy over more reliable and affordable energy sources such as coal and gas. The effect of the LGC is twofold. It creates an irresistible financial incentive for investment in renewable energy.
            But it also creates an increase in electricity costs as the Government’s renewable energy target legislation allows for energy retailers to pass on 100% of the cost of purchasing the LGC to their electricity customers.

            More>

            ————————
            Minerals Council of Australia. 2015

            Electricity production subsidies in Australia [ 2013-14 ]

            Executive summary;[ extract.]

            The cost of public support for different electricity generation technologies in Australia is not transparent.

            Almost 84 per cent of aggregate subsidies originate from government mandates that are paid for by electricity customers and collected by third parties.
            These subsidies therefore do not appear in government accounts.

            This report derives indicative estimates of aggregate subsidies for electricity production in 2013-14, drawing on a variety of sources in the public domain.

            Direct or mandated transfers in the form of subsidies are significant for some technologies, in particular for renewable energy technologies such as household solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind.

            Table 1 shows a ‘best estimate’ of electricity production subsidies in 2013-14 allocated by technology/fuel, including a share of support paid to coal mining that may indirectly benefit electricity generation from coal:
            .

            In aggregate, subsidies for electricity generation from renewable sources amounted to almost $2.8 billion in 2013-14, more than 19 times the subsidies paid to generation from fossil fuels ($145 million).
            .

            • By far the largest component of renewable subsidies went to generation from solar PV technologies, more than $2 billion in 2013-14 (68 per cent of aggregate subsidies).
            The bulk of these subsidies ($932 million) is attributable to the small-scale part of the renewable energy target (RET) and to payments under state feed-in tariff (FiT) schemes
            ($855 million).
            Payments made by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) to benefit solar generation are estimated to account for an additional $157 million.
            .

            • Subsidies paid to electricity generation from wind technologies amounted to around $388 million, or 13 per cent of aggregate subsidies.

            Almost all of these subsidies ($386 million) are attributable to payments under the large-scale RET (LRET).
            Given the uncertainty about historical prices of large-scale renewable energy certificates (LGCs), the true cost of the scheme may be significantly higher.
            .

            • Subsidies paid to other renewables cover a range of technologies, including generation from hydroelectric sources (around $160 million under the LRET scheme) and payments to support various electricity generation technologies made by ARENA ($105 million).

            In aggregate, these subsidies amounted to approximately 14 per cent of the total.
            .

            On a per megawatt hour (MWh) basis, renewable subsidies translated into almost $412/MWh for generation from solar technologies, $42/MWh for wind, and $18/MWh for all other renewable sources.

            In comparison, subsidies attributable to generation from coal amounted to less than $1/MWh, and for natural gas to less than 30¢/MWh.

            20

    • #
      yarpos

      Jo/the mods will have access to quite good stats on readership, unique visits, source locations/countries etc.

      10

  • #
    Hat Rack

    Bjorn Lomborg has written an opinion piece in today’s Australian newspaper.
    The interesting part: To keep temperature increases to 2C or less, the UNFCCC says we need to cut CO2 emissions by 5,500 billion tonnes before the year 2100. However, If every nation honoured their commitment given at Paris, CO2 emissions would only fall by 56 billion tonnes.

    Hmm. Just missed it by 99%.

    In the comments following the piece, Graham says “Halal coal is the go”, to which Michael responds “What? We don’t have halal coal already?”

    70

  • #
    Robber

    The Jacobs Report that was the technical basis for Dr Finkel’s report – lots of data and assumptions, will take some time to analyse.

    10

    • #
      Robber

      Some extracts from the Jacob’s report. It is 266 pages long, like any good consultant’s “value for money” report. Even the Executive Summary is 11 pages long:
      – All policies lead to higher economic costs, ranging from $116-200 billion
      – The objectives of this study are to compare 7 alternative policies to meet a common emission reduction target.
      – Underpinning the analysis is the assumption of global action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
      – By 2030, the brown coal fleet is decommissioned along with over two-thirds of the black coal fleet.
      – Gas-fired generation has an important role and the level of gas-fired generation increases in the period to 2030.
      – Where there was a high level of intermittent generation, AEMO’s deterministic rules were deployed to ensure sufficient back-up generation was available. This meant that in some scenarios, there was a higher level of investment in open cycle gas turbines to ensure sufficient back-up. These plants were bid in at the maximum price levels and earnt sufficient revenues to cover their variable and fixed costs.
      – Retail prices are generally higher under the policy scenarios compared to the reference case. This is due either to higher wholesale prices or the pass through of certificate costs under the technology pull policies. Residential retail prices have an average increase of around 12% to 23% relative to the reference case.
      – Representative customer bills are higher under the policy scenarios by over $150 per annum.
      – The scenario results should not be treated as a forecast for commercial purposes.
      – The energy demand growth is 1.7% pa.
      – Small scale generation supplies around 6.5% of total demand by 2050.
      – Storage costs are assumed to decline from $400/Kwhr to $150/KWhr by 2020.

      Still searching for levelised costs of each form of generation that were quoted in Finkel’s report.

      30

  • #
    pat

    heard an Aussie journo in Portugal talk of the incredibly dense eucalypt/pine forests that come right up to the roads and how explosive they are:

    19 Jun: AFP: Thomas Cabral: Portugal forest fire turns route 236 into road of hell
    Prior, a 55-year-old bank employee: “The entire zone was engulfed by the fire in the space of around 10 minutes,” he said…
    The violence of the flames and speed with which the fire spread, were “incomprehensible”, said Malheiro…
    Several kilometres away, a policeman kept journalists from approaching a burned car at the entrance to the village of Nodeirinho, surrounded by a forest of Eucalyptus trees and pines destroyed by the flames…
    Isabel Ferreira: “We have never seen anything like this.”…

    Wikipedia: 2017 Portugal wildfires
    A series of deadly wildfires erupted across central Portugal during the night of 17–18 June 2017, resulting in at least 61 deaths and at least 54 injured people. The majority of deaths took place in Pedrógão Grande when a fire swept across a road filled with evacuees…
    The greatest loss of life took place on a rural road in Pedrógão Grande, where 47 people died in or near their cars when a fire overtook the area; 30 people died while trapped in their vehicles while the other 17 died nearby trying to escape on foot. Another 11 people died in Nodeirinho, near the IC8 motorway…

    18 Jun: EuroNews: Chris Harris: What impact did climate change have in Portugal’s deadly wildfire
    Global warming was a factor in a deadly wildfire that hit central Portugal and left more than 60 people dead, it’s been claimed.
    Thomas Curt, a researcher at the National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture, said climate change had extended the wildfire season from two to up to five months…
    “It is a certainty, we are witnessing a rise in temperatures, but a warmer air is synonymous with drier, more flammable vegetation.
    “These meteorological conditions increase the risk of fire but also their intensity. We can now see fires, like that of Portugal, which firefighters can hardly extinguish…

    Curt said on top of climate change Portugal had an ‘enormous amount of combustible vegetation’ such as pine forests and eucalyptus trees…

    “As a further aggravating factor, the Iberian Peninsula is experiencing global warming more severely than other regions…
    The different analyses of climate change show that these great fires will become more and more probable.”
    http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/18/what-impact-did-climate-change-have-in-portugal-s-deadly-wildfire

    10

  • #
    pat

    7 Jun: Phys.org: Acacias are invading unaltered areas in the northwest of the peninsula
    The legume Acacia dealbata, also known as mimosa, is one of the most aggressive invasive tree species in the world. In the northwest of the peninsula its propagation is an increasingly serious problem since it is penetrating unaltered plant communities, according to a study by the University of Vigo and the University of Coimbra (Portugal). Scientists stress the important role of fires in their dispersal and conclude that natural scrubland could be an effective barrier to slowing down rapid invasion…

    The number of populations of Acacia dealbata or mimosas in the northwest of the peninsula has increased in a concerning manner over the last few years and the space occupied by this species is ever greater. This increase is occurring considerably both in disturbed areas and in peri-urban areas, proximities to communication routes -roads and railways- and in forest plantations of eucalyptus and conifers, such as pine…
    “Another technique being carried out in Portugal, and which we are trying out in Galicia, is the stripping of the tree bark so that the root dries out and the tree subsequently dies,” explained Rodríguez.
    In addition to these control techniques, it is important to highlight the ecosystem conservation work and avoid exotic forest plantations…
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-acacias-invading-unaltered-areas-northwest.html

    PICS: 2012: Blog: Julie Dawn Fox: E is for Eucalyptus Trees
    No matter which of my windows I choose to look out of, I see eucalyptus covered hills…
    In recent years, Portuguese farmers have covered vast stretches of land with these trees, especially in central Portugal.
    They’re simple to grow, three times as lucrative as cork and can be harvested within 12 years so it’s easy to see why…
    The eucalyptus grown in Portugal is used mainly as pulp for making paper. The oils and resin are also manufactured…

    Bee stings aside, there are other reasons why not everyone is happy about the proliferation of eucalyptus forests. Having replaced the natural diversity of previous woodlands, the monoculture of eucalyptus trees has had an adverse effect on soil quality and on the diversity of wildlife in some areas…

    There’s also the problem of forest fires. The oil produced by the trees, combined with the litter created by the falling bark makes eucalyptus forests a serious fire hazard. To minimise the risk of fires spreading, farmers are supposed to clear the bark and trim the trees so that instead of four or five trees growing from one stump, there is only one. Unfortunately, this doesn’t always happen and when fires take hold they quickly devastate vast areas, turning green hills to grim bare land studded with the blackened remains of tree stumps.

    Being surrounded by forests is soothing most of the time but when the air is thick with smoke, helicopters are darting back and forth and the red glow of the fire is clearly visible on the hills surrounding your house, it’s pretty scary…

    FROM COMMENTS:
    WOMBAT: Eucalyptus has completely taken over Portugal…
    In summer those plantations are terribly hot and you don’t even want to walk there. No way fires would have occurred in Portugal at the same rate as now, with the Eucalyptus plantations. These dry plantations burn like crazy. They’re oily, they have loose bark hanging and all trees are of the same size. That’s asking for trouble and rapid fire development…

    The biggest problem is that Portugal is very corrupt and the paper lobby has done its work very well over the years. Any Eucalyptus related problem never gets mentioned by name. When a Eucalyptus plantation burns down, on tv they’ll call it a forest fire. There are scientific papers published about the benefits of the industry that are full with lies. Nowadays, in Portugal no professor is even considering studying or publishing anything that will discredit the paper industry. Science has become too afraid of getting its budget cut by the powerful Eucalyptus lobby. At school children get a small Eucalyptus tree to take care of. They’re not allowed to call it an exotic tree. They call it naturalized. In not too much time from now, Eucalyptus is considered a native tree here. Next time you see Portugal burn down again, don’t feel sorry for the Portuguese. It’s their own fault…

    SAMI: I remember fires out of control when living in the center of Portugal…A sad yearly occurrence unfortunately!…
    https://juliedawnfox.com/e-is-for-eucalyptus-trees/

    FOLLOWING REPORT IS WELL WORTH A READ, WITH ITS CHARTS AND FIGURES:

    PDF: 21 pages: 2006 Report: The deep roots of the 2003 Forest Fires in Portugal
    http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_34/02-IFFN-34-Portugal-Country-Report-1.pdf

    20

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    More land clearing in Queensland has endangered several species but is a boon for superlatives.
    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-19/land-clearing-rates-qld-need-to-be-lowered-new-study/8628524

    “In the lifetime of a child born today, we will have no trees left if it continues at the rate it is going and that means no habitat,” Dr Seabrook said.

    The ghost of Viner’s Snow has been reincarnated.

    50

    • #
      Annie

      Strange, that. If you fly from Brisbane towards Darwin the forest seems to go on forever. It is certainly not a cleared landscape.

      10

    • #

      Say, how many wind turbines does it take to replace
      a coal mine? Wind turbines,the march of the giants,*
      landscape encroaching…forest clearing…bird and bat
      destroying …motor oil flinging,…vibrating, humming
      …light flickering and in freezing weather ice flinging
      …heh, what’s not to like, u greenies, gazing through
      rose tinted spectacles from yr inner-city-decision-centres?

      Eric Rosenbloom in ‘A Problem with Wind Power’ gives an
      overview with some landscape pics.

      ‘GE boasts that the span of their rotor blades is larger
      than the wingspan of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. The typical
      1.5-MW assembly is two stories higher than the Statue of
      Liberty, including its base and pedestal. The editor of
      ‘Windpower Monthly’ wrote in September 1998, “Too often
      the public has felt duped into envisioning fairy tale
      ‘parks’ in the countryside. The reality has been an abrupt
      awakening. Wind power stations are no parks.” They are
      industrial and commercial installations. They do not belong
      in wilderness areas. As the U.K. Countryside Agency has said,
      it makes no sense to tackle one environmental problem by
      instead creating another.’

      * Size wise but not performance wise.

      20

  • #
    pat

    I have not seen a single MSM piece headlining an Australian politician being critical of the recent electricity price rises.

    now, the LaborParty is all the rage with this:

    Bill Shorten pushes for cladding inquiry after Grenfell Tower fire
    The Sydney Morning Herald-12 hours ago

    Labor wants urgent hearing into building cladding following Grenfell fire
    Local Source-The Guardian-6 hours ago

    Bill Shorten: ‘I Don’t Want To See Grenfell Occur In Australia’
    Huffington Post Australia – ‎12 hours ago‎

    Labor’s Bill Shorten to call for public inquiry into building codes
    Courier Mail – ‎20 hours ago‎

    Cladding ‘makes 30 buildings in Melbourne fire risks’
    The Australian – ‎12 hours ago‎
    Federal Labor will call today for an urgent inquiry into building cladding material to ensure a similar disaster to the Grenfell Tower fire in London does not happen in Australia. Bill Shorten said the Grenfell inferno was a “shocking tragedy”

    19 Jun: ABC: Australia’s use of cladding to be investigated by Senate committee following Grenfell fire
    By political reporter Stephen Dziedzic
    Independent senator Nick Xenophon said his party would back the hearing.
    “This is an issue that requires absolute bipartisan support. We need to have a national audit of buildings around the country, this was not done after the Lacrosse fire,” he said…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-19/grenfell-fire-prompts-australian-investigation-into-cladding/8629964

    BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS WRITTEN JUST FOUR DAYS AGO, ABC AND THE REST OF THE MSM?

    15 Jun: ABC: Margaret Paul: London tower fire: Cladding used in Grenfell renovations similar to 2014 Docklands fire
    Senator Xenophon is on a Senate committee examining the issue of non-compliant cladding, and said work was needed to ensure a similar tragedy didn’t happen in Australia…
    The Senate committee is due to hand down its final report in ***October, 2017.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/cladding-on-grenfell-tower-similar-to-2014-melbourne-fire/8619522

    10

  • #
    pat

    18 Jun: UK Express: Jon Austin: EXCLUSIVE: Grenfell Tower refurbishers OVER INSULATED building to avoid repeat job
    PLANNERS behind the gutted Grenfell tower block refurbishment “far exceeded” required insulation levels to help meet green climate change targets and avoid future improvement work, Express.co.uk can exclusively reveal.
    A report submitted during the planning process shows the developers, hired by the Royal Borough Council of Kensington and Chelsea, insulated the 120 flats block to higher levels than were necessary.

    A sustainability and energy statement submitted by engineering consultant Max Fordham in 2012 as part of the planning application process revealed the existing concrete cladding was well below thermal insulation levels now required by building regulations.

    A primary aim of the £8.6million refurbishment was to stem heat loss in winter, and summer overheating problems, through the external insulation, new heating and windows.
    However, the document went on to say that those behind the project chose to “far exceed” the insulation levels required today, to avoid having to do it again in future years…

    A table in the report showed the target levels of insulation for Grenfell Tower exceeded the minimum level needed by 50 percent…

    The report said the council policy was for a refurbishment to achieve a “Very Good” score from BREEAM under its “Energy, Water and Materials sections.”

    The council also wanted the project to comply with carbon emission reducing targets set by the then-Mayor of London Boris Johnson in 2011 and Government targets…

    (from the report): “The council recognises the Government’s targets to reduce national carbon dioxide emissions by 26 percent against 1990 levels by 2020 in order to meet a 60 percent reduction by 2050 and will require developments to make a significant contribution towards this target.”…
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/818321/Grenfell-tower-fire-over-insulated-avoid-repeat-job-cladding

    10

    • #
      Watt

      This is what pushing ridiculous aspirational targets does. Some people take them seriously. Not just the impressionable, low educational achievers but supposed professionals.

      10

  • #
    pat

    19 Jun: DailyMail: Alexander Robertson: Fears of a Grenfell Tower cover-up as Labour MP who lost artist friend urges police to carry out raids to stop firms and councils from destroying evidence
    Police urged to seize any potentially-incriminating evidence before it is deleted
    Council chiefs and building firms could face manslaughter charges over disaster
    Labour’s David Lammy warns ‘everyone culpable’ for disaster could avoid justice

    Fears of a Grenfell Tower cover-up has led to calls for raids to take place on businesses and authorities at the centre of the investigation into the deadly inferno.
    The Prime Minister and the Metropolitan Police have been urged to seize any potentially-incriminating evidence before it can be destroyed…
    Labour MP David Lammy demanded urgent action, claiming contractors were expunging details of their work on the tower from their websites…

    Harley Facades, which was paid £2.6million to supply and fit the cladding, said it had removed the Grenfell Tower page from its website ‘as a mark of respect’.
    The plastic panels – that even the manufacturer warned were a deadly fire risk – are banned on high-rise buildings in Britain, ministers said yesterday…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4616482/Fears-Grenfell-Tower-cover-calls-raids.html

    20

  • #
    Rick Will

    Australia’s subsidised symbols of stupidity adorning every windswept ridge.

    According to the Jacob Group’s report today could never happen:
    http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy
    200MW out from 4395MW installed.

    40

    • #

      Actually, it happens quite often.

      Consider this.

      Over the last seven days, all wind power in Australia has only averaged 410MW per day, and on Friday, it was only an average of 150MW, the all day average, and that 150MW was 0.57% of Australia’s power requirement.

      That seven day 410MW daily average comes in at a Capacity Factor of 9.3%, for those seven days.

      On a daily basis across those last seven days, wind has supplied 1.6% of Australia’s total power generation.

      That’s not just an isolated single point in time. That’s across seven continuous whole days.

      If wind is all we are supposed to have, what do you do when you have times like this?

      Tony.

      111

      • #
        Rick Will

        Either you have the numbers wrong or Jacobs Group report is misleading:
        https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1d6b0464-6162-4223-ac08-3395a6b1c7fa/files/emissions-mitigation-policies.pdf
        Look at the chart on page 30. Wind only ever goes below 10% CF 1 hour a week in March, never below 10% in August.

        If you consider that an unreasonable stretch of reality then you should not look at the charts on top of the next page. They are miraculously hopeful regarding sunlight.

        The Finkel report is a joke. The Jacobs Group are the jokers. They should be embarrassed to put their name to such tripe. This gives the credentials of the principal joker modelling the policy options for Australia’s power generation and supply for the next 50 years:
        https://au.linkedin.com/in/walter-gerardi-81391483

        30

        • #

          Wind Power across Australia for the last week. Percentage is Capacity Factor.

          Monday 12Jun – Average for the whole day – 600MW – 13.6%
          Tuesday 13Jun – Average for the whole day – 260MW – 5.9%
          Wednesday 14Jun – Average for the whole day – 810MW – 18.4%
          Thursday 15Jun – Average for the whole day – 420MW – 9.5%
          Friday 16Jun – Average for the whole day – 150MW – 3.4%
          Saturday 17Jun – Average for the whole day – 300MW – 6.8%
          Sunday 18Jun – Average for the whole day – 320MW – 7.2%

          Seven Day average – 410MW – 9.3%

          All this is actual data.

          That report you linked to, misleading????? Funny how actual data always tells it like it is.

          Tony.

          91

          • #

            Monday 12Jun – 10 hours below 10%
            Tuesday 13Jun – 23 hours below 10%
            Wednesday 14Jun – 0 hours below 10%
            Thursday 15Jun – 14 hours below 10%
            Friday 16Jun – 24 hours below 10%
            Saturday 17Jun – 15 hours below 10%
            Sunday 18Jun – 18 hours below 10%

            168 hours in this week, and for 104 of those hours, it was below 10%

            62% of the week below 10%

            Umm! You be the judge.

            Tony.

            51

          • #

            I have the distinct impression that this Jacobs Group Report is structured to tell the Government what it wants to hear.

            I mentions that wind power only fell below 10% for one hour in March.

            So, just for the point of the exercise, I went and checked for the whole of this Month so far.

            This is for the 19 days so far of June 2017.

            Wind power was below 10% generation for 222 hours, yes two hundred and twenty two hours lower than 10%. In those 19 days, there is a total of 456 hours, so wind has been below ten percent for almost half of those hours.

            The average daily power generation for 19 days has been 545MW at a Capacity Factor for those 19 days of only 12.4%.

            True, there were days when it was up beyond 1000MW, (two days, and even that is only 23% CF) but with 222 hours below 10%, that’s an average of more than 11 hours a day under 10%.

            That’s a little more than the suggested one hour in one selected Month, and if they can cherry pick, well, so can I.

            Anyway, where they artfully suggest that there may have only been one hour in March 2016 where total generation fell below 10%, there was actually 149 hours in their designated Month where the total fell below 10%.

            Their report has a number of inconsistencies, but hey, I feel sure a ‘Report’ would get more credence than any facts, eh!

            Tony.

            10

            • #
              Rick Will

              Their report has a number of inconsistencies, but hey, I feel sure a ‘Report’ would get more credence than any facts, eh!

              The author of the Jacobs Group Report is reasonably well described as a tree hugging economist. Degree in Ag Science and post graduate qualifications in economics. There is no indication that it the report was even checked by someone with actual knowledge of power generation. It is pathetic. I have downloaded a copy because I could not imagine senior personnel in Jacobs Group would be proud of that nonsense.

              10

      • #
        yarpos

        in answer to the last line question, start your generator

        20

    • #
      TdeF

      Every windmill importer, installer and overseas manufacturer would be cheering the graph.
      It means that because they don’t work very well, we will need many more of them.
      Logic is not part of Green thinking. After all, this is free energy, isn’t it?

      40

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    I will dump this comment I made in The Australian today which seems to have met with some approval. (Yes, I’m skiting).

    The Liberals energy policy is based only on wishful thinking. They want cheap, reliable energy with low emissions. They cannot grasp that this is impossible outside of nuclear but that is 10 years or more off.

    They either have to drop the Paris nonsense and go back to cheap reliable coal, which with newer power stations would reduce emissions or they be honest with the public and say your electricity bill has doubled to get 10% renewables but we are going for 42% so your bill will be unaffordable.

    The more renewables the higher the more electricity costs. This move to higher renewables will cause small businesses to shut, higher unemployment and financial disaster for the Retail Sector.

    They won’t make any decision, instead they will dither us into a depression.

    90

    • #
      TdeF

      The newer super critical boilers mean only 6% more efficiency. Existing power stations can be upgraded, for a slight saving in coal use and hardly worth it. Brown coal vs Black coal is 6% too. Coal power stations are on the ground, unlike windmills. So they are relatively easy to fix.

      The very idea that CO2 is pollution has to be confronted as wrong, nutty even self contradictory. If anything, the world was really close to a mass extinction from a CO2 level that was far too low. Under about 0.02%, plants do not grow. The world has suffered from the wrong advice of rogue scientists who have joined Monckton’s ‘profiteers of doom’.

      Finkel’s report is not about science. It is about pandering to fantasists and government by media, the least scientific people in the community.
      Besides and this is an important point, coal is free too.

      60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Pathetically, the Luddites are now talking about producing steel without coal, e.g. using “renewable” electricity and biogas or wood.

    Just like electricity production, they have no clue of the scale of production and the energy involved, or even the chemistry for that matter.

    http://coalaction.org.nz/carbon-emissions/can-we-make-steel-without-coal

    Steel can theoretically be produce by electrolytic reduction of ore just as for aluminium but is not a commercial process yet and likely never will be. You would need a constant flow of power which windmills can’t provide or produce cheaply.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaner-cheaper-way-to-make-steel-uses-electricity/

    42

    • #
      Rick Will

      Steel can theoretically be produce by electrolytic reduction of ore just as for aluminium but is not a commercial process yet and likely never will be. You would need a constant flow of power which windmills can’t provide or produce cheaply.

      David, what do you think these big black blocks are used for in an aluminium pot line:
      https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDLg6YVfxoClZCb7kIdCrWo4x06rpfzNHqWhxs68Av4ygOkHeK

      Managing anode production and rotation are the most critical part of keeping a reduction line stable.

      20

      • #
        David Maddison

        I don’t believe carbon electrodes are suitable for electolytic reduction of iron ore, more exotic snd expensive materials are required.

        22

        • #
          Rick Will

          The anode is consumed in the reduction of alumina exactly the same as coke is consumed in a blast furnace. The point is, even if iron is produced by electrolysis there is still a need for a reducing agent and carbon offers the source for that. The DRI referred to uses carbon from natural gas. BHP spent a large fortune trying a DRI process in Port Hedland with spectacular failure.

          China will continue to buy Australia’s met and thermal coal plus iron ore, convert it to components for wind turbines that they finance back to Australia so those reliant on grid power in Australia can aid elderly Chinese be financially independent of their children. Instead Australian children will help support the Chinese in their old age. There are a lot of ageing Chinese and they will need massive support from the global community as they age. They are investing in their future.

          30

          • #
            TdeF

            The beauty and necessity of pure carbon in smelting is that when the Fe2O3 or AL2O3 are reduced, the carbon from the coke (pure carbon) or the electrodes is converted into CO2 and bubbles away. Oxygen prefers carbon. Our lives depend on this. It is what powers our bodies and all the plants and insects.

            That is the entire purpose of coke (purest carbon) from coal, the mere discovery of which meant that the earlier charcoal from burnt wood was not needed, the temperatures could be much higher and a vastly improved steel not cast iron powered the industrial revolution. The forests of England and Finland were saved. It is said no tree in Finland is over 200 years old. Coal is what saved our forests and the Greens should be thrilled, but they hate CO2, hate steel and hate industry and farmers. Funny, considering everything they have is a direct benefit.

            Potentially we could have electric arc furnaces to melt the mix of old steel, haematite and coke and limestone and dolomite in the bessermer furnaces, but we still need coke. They blow pure oxygen at supersonic speeds into the mixture to remove the remaining carbon, generate vast amounts of heat from the carbon and silicon and not to oxidize the steel. Steel making all hinges on making CO2.
            It also means that the supply of energy cannot be intermittent, as Alcoa can testify with 75% of their pots frozen solid.

            So without generating CO2, we do not have aluminium or steel. Now try driving around in a Flintstones car.

            50

  • #
    pat

    FT article is behind paywall:

    from Financial Times, 16 June:
    The Bank of England will probe banks’ exposure to climate change as it steps up efforts to tackle what it says are “significant” financial threats posed by global warming. Climate change experts said the BoE’s decision to do an internal review of the banking sector, which the central bank revealed on its website on Friday, marked a first. “This is ground-breaking,” said Ben Caldecott, director of the sustainable finance programme at Oxford University’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. “This is the first time a financial regulator has looked at climate risk in such a comprehensive way and at the banking sector in particular.”
    LINK TO FT
    http://electricityinfo.org/news/climate-change/

    replies are mostly mocking, with someone suggesting the Bank go to the experts, incl Malcolm Roberts. lol:

    Twitter: Bank of England: Tweet: With global temperatures climbing, how is the Bank of England responding to #climatechange?
    http://electricityinfo.org/news/climate-change/

    10

  • #
    pat

    comment on Bank of England meddling in CAGW again has gone into moderation.

    indeed…CAGW policies kill. Dean quotes Dr Glockling of the UK’s Fire Protection Association:

    19 Jun: Courier Mail: Rowan Dean: Grenfell Tower fire an apt metaphor for climate change alarmism
    It’s not climate change that kills. It’s the zealotry of those who believe they are on a Gaia-given mission to save the planet that is capable of causing economic mayhem, poverty and even death…

    At this stage, it seems those who lost their lives in the Grenfell fire were the victims of not one but two forms of climate-change alarmism: the fire appears to have been started by a fridge that exploded thanks to its “environmentally friendly” coolant, and the flames spread so rapidly thanks to the recently installed “green energy” cladding, designed to beautify this concrete eyesore.

    If true, the coroner may as well scribble “cause of death: climate-change alarmism” on his report. “Energy efficiency” considerations prioritised over safety considerations.
    As I said, the metaphor is extreme, but apt…

    The reality is that unless we scrap the RET, abandon the Paris Accord, and give Finkel the flick, energy prices will skyrocket and jobs and prosperity will go up in smoke.

    The result will be disastrous. The higher electricity bills go, the higher the cost of living, and more will struggle to make ends meet. One Government minister said people are already going in for medical treatment because they can’t afford their power bills.

    Some, tragically, may even die. Talk about a bonfire of lefty vanities.
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/grenfell-tower-fire-an-apt-metaphor-for-climate-change-alarmism/news-story/698fcdd6ac7e1d85401a5f3f95185f37

    20

  • #
    pat

    this piece just made me VERY, VERY ANGRY…GOOD NIGHT:

    19 Jun: Australian: Andrew White: Electricity hikes spark $8bn boom in renewables
    Soaring electricity prices and a settled renewable energy target have attracted a record investment of $7.8 billion in new solar and wind projects as local and international firms rush to cash in and overcome years of under­investment.

    But the spending boom has arrived too late for business and household electricity users on the east coast, with prices in NSW, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia set to rise as much as 20 per cent a year from July.

    Ahead of federal cabinet considering the recommendations of Chief Scientist Alan Finkel to guide new investment, companies have committed to, or are in the process of, developing new generation capacity able to take advantage of the high prices and increased market share that will come with the closure of coal-fired power.

    Clean Energy Council chief executive Kane Thornton said the pace of new commitments had picked up in the past year and he could see commitments for new investment sufficient to meet the renewable energy target by the end of the year.
    “It is really only in the past 6-12 months that there has been some policy and … bipartisanship over the renewable energy target.
    “As that new capacity comes on line and brings more supply to the market it will put downward pressure on prices,’’ he said.

    CEC figures show 39 projects that are in the process of being built or have been completed this year will add 3712 megawatts of new generation capacity.
    ITK Consulting principal David Leitch estimated recently that as much as 4942MW of new capacity was coming to market, including 1200MW of rooftop solar generation.
    This compared with 1600MW of capacity withdrawn from the market last month by the closure of Victoria’s Hazelwood power station.

    Mr Leitch said 2017-18 may be the last year in a run of steep electricity bill increases as rising investment and falling costs combine to drive down prices.
    “It shows that the market is working,” Mr Leitch said.

    “The cure for high prices is high prices.”…READ ON
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/electricity-hikes-spark-8bn-boom-in-renewables/news-story/7a33298dd1a7f7070e8d4f1b5dae070f

    40

    • #
      TdeF

      Good work. This ridiculous self justifying commentary was inflammatory… ” including 1200MW of rooftop solar generation
      This compared with 1600MW of capacity withdrawn from the market last month by the closure of Victoria’s Hazelwood power station.”
      So a coal power station which can produce 1600MW day or night, summer or winter, storms or dead still days is compared with an absolute maximum of 1200MW of lunch time solar? Cue ironic laughter. Pure deceit.

      80

  • #
    Robber

    The real costs of wind and solar.
    On page 201 of Dr Finkel’s report there is a table reporting levelised cost of electricity (LCOE). The LCOE is a measure of the average cost of producing electricity from a specific
    generating technology. It represents the cost per megawatt-hour (MWh) of building and operating a generating plant in order to breakeven over an assumed financial life. Key inputs to calculating the LCOEs include capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, and assumed usage rates for each technology type. The data is from the Jacob’s report but I have not been able to find all the assumptions. Cost of capital assumptions are consistent with those used in policy cases, that is, without the risk premium applied.
    The LCOEs are as follows:
    Wind $92/MWhr (range 65-130)
    Large-scale Solar Photovoltaic $91/MWhr (range 75-125)
    Large-scale Solar Photovoltaic with storage $138/MWhr (range 100-180) includes 3 hours storage at 100 per cent capacity.
    Solar Thermal with storage $172/MWhr (range 140-240) includes 12 hours storage at 100 per cent capacity.
    Gas CCGT $83/MWhr (range 75-105)
    Gas OCGT $123/MWhr (range 120-140)
    Supercritical coal $76/MWhr (range 65-85)
    Ultrasupercritical coal $81/MWhr (range 65-105)

    My conclusion: Coal is the winner! But what continues to drive wind/solar investments is the renewable energy certificates currently selling for about $82/MWhr that these generators get in addition to the wholesale price currently about $100/MWhr (that just last year was only $50/MWhr(.

    Note that wind does not have factored into its cost any backup, yet Dr Finkel’s report did recommend that all new generators have an obligation to ensure adequate dispatchable capacity. As wind needs 100% backup, that means you should add the cost of a standby gas generator to each wind farm, essentially doubling the cost. You can see above how adding storage to solar effectively doubles the cost.

    Now can anyone tell me how we can possibly have a future with lower electricity prices, given the stupidity of government policies to exterminate coal generators?

    20

  • #
    Will Janoschka

    From Tallbloke:
    http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Flow/FlowAvg.pdf

    Really! Me that banned roger? GO read elsewhere!

    P.A.Semi says: June 13, 2017 at 10:32 am

    (> June 12, 2017 at 10:51 am)
    “Your formulas with phi and planet frequencies — this works ONLY if they are expressed in Earth-years ? What meaning has Earth-years in large-planet cycles?”

    No meaning only fantasy! Phi (Golden section ratio), (integer Fibonacci series), is natures log function, with origin unity (one), not arithmetic zero, but control systems poles\zeros (resonances)! This relates earthling elapsed time (T, past) to its conjugate -frequency (F, future).

    “Also, Solar Hale cycle frequency of 22.1393 years is also just theoretical or a crude average…”

    Yes crude. Take the reciprocal of each SS planet’s sidereal spin\orbital time interval (in seconds) as a “frequency”, related to some pole\zero asymptote of unity\infinity. Plot all on both semi-log and log-log graphs.
    On the log-log graph notice that all are near but never ‘on’ a straight line. What does that mean?
    All the best!-will-

    01