UK wind farms paid to not make sausages

Wind farms, Scotland.

OK, a wind farm isn’t making sausages, but it’s also not a farm.

Nothing about this makes sense, unless you follow-the-money.

John Constable and Matt Ridley outline the absolute rort that Scottish wind generators are screwing out of British electricity customers. Scotland already has 750 industrial wind plants (the scammers) in their best moments making a total of 5,700 MW which is more than the peak demand of the whole Scottish grid.  This is, at times, not just more than Scotland can use, but even more than it can safely absorb, so UK slaves were forced to spend £1.8 billion on giant interconnectors partly to send the excess down to England and whatnot, otherwise the profits of the unprofitable might suffer, and the weather might not be as nice in 2100 (or not).

If that’s not bad enough, these protected industrial plants sometimes produce a product when nobody wants it, and they still get paid. When it would be unsafe to dump it on the market. The geniuses who set this up promised the wind-generators that they would still be paid. And not only are they paid, but as Ridley and Constable document, before 2011 they were paid on average, four times what they would have lost, and one farm, 20 times as much. After that was exposed, the payments were trimmed to merely being 50-100% more than the loss. Nice work if you can get it, and even better if you can’t.

No free market here

In a free market, buyers connect with sellers. In a socialist-planet-saving-scam the buyers go to jail if they don’t pay for a product they didn’t use and don’t want, and the sellers connect with politicians who only represent 10% of the buyers. The people deciding whether to build or approve or invest in building most unneeded, unwanted, bird killing windmills are not the ones who pay for the product. Every new windmill is an automatic feeder off British forced consumers. So it’s in the Scottish governments interests to milk this situation for all it’s worth and approve every tower. What will stop them turning the whole of Scotland into a giant welfare windmill? Maybe only a hard Brexit with Scotland left behind.

Bear in mind some poor Scots have to put up with these towers, and they’re protesting, but drowned out by the river of gravy pumped from the south.

The layers of stupid don’t end there. Some corporates may be scamming both sides of the border. There are companies wanting to build even more towers in Scotland, but on the south side of the equation, they may be the same ones being paid high rates to rush in and fill in the missing supply at the last minute when the Scottish wind turbines are told to switch off. There is a unseen price for the volatility of wind power.

The Scottish wind-power racket

By John Constable and Matt Ridley

Imagine a sausage factory – the luckiest, most profitable sausage factory in the world. Its machines crank out their sausages, and lorries carry them to supermarkets. So far, so normal.

But this particular factory makes as many sausages as the management and staff choose. If they feel like taking the day off, the lorries and shelves stay empty. If they want to go a bit wild, they sometimes make so many sausages that there aren’t enough lorries to take them away. Or they carry on cranking out sausages even if the shelves are already full.

And here’s the really amazing thing: even when the lorries can’t cope or there is no demand for sausages, the factory gets paid. Indeed, they get paid more for not sending the sausages to the shops than for sending them. This is such great business that the factory is actually building an extension, so it can threaten to make even more unwanted sausages.

Does all that sound completely mad? Of course it does. But it’s what happens in the British electricity industry – where the blackmailing, money-printing sausage factory is a wind farm in Scotland.

Read it all at CapX…

h/t Matt Ridley. @mattwridley

9.7 out of 10 based on 104 ratings

93 comments to UK wind farms paid to not make sausages

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Absolutely believable with wind power , without the subsidy they wouldn’t exist .


    • #

      Ain’t that the truth.


    • #

      BUT, according to the brainwashed internet warriors, they do not need fuel.

      And when coal fired power stations have wet coal they cannot operate.

      Worse: “The battery (no mention of location) will solve our electricity price problems.

      The ist goes on.


  • #
    David Maddison

    Wind farms are parasitic loads on the grid, the economy and Civilisation itself.


  • #

    Repeat after us, Scotland: intermittent, diffuse, unstorable, unreliable, land-hungry, unsightly, ridge-destroying, coast-defacing, noisy, dangerous, intrusive, incompatible, old-fashioned, unimaginative, medieval, subsidy-gobbling, expensive.

    Also, only renewable if you can find a mug who wants to renew the rickety crates.


    • #

      ‘What giants?’ asked Sancho Panza.

      ‘Those whom we see yonder, with their immense extended arms.’ replied Don Quixote. ‘ Some of that detested race have arms
      that reach two leagues across the land.’ Couching his lance
      and protecting himself with his shield, Don Quixote rushed
      with Rozinante’s utmost speed upon the first windmill he
      came to, running his lance into the sail. The wind whirled
      with such force that his lance was broken into shivers and
      knight and horse hurled away with it and flung a good way
      into the field.’

      These giant wind turbines sure take up a lot of land.

      …So are wind farms ‘good’ for the climate? Do they reduce
      CO2 emissions? Well you’d have to say there’s a problem with
      ‘on – again, off – again,’ back – up technology standing in
      for ‘on – again, off – again,’ wind technology. A Dutch
      Study by C.le Pair 2009, ‘Energy in The Netherlands,’
      criticizes the energy models that sold wind power to the Netherlands’ Government because the models neglect factors
      that increase fossil fuel consumption and CO2.

      Ramping up conventional energy plants when the wind isn’t
      blowing, and ramping down when it is both increase fuel
      consumption and CO2 emissions. Then there’s the extra
      energy needed to build these huge, short lived steel
      giants…Don Quixote’s not wrong.


      • #

        Guess wordpress don’t like me criticising wind turbines. (


        • #
          Will Janoschka

          “wind turbines”

          Try political ugly, useless, embarrassment, to all of humankind!


          • #

            Hey…I forgot DEPENDENT. Don’t forget how much naughty hydrocarbon energy is involved in the mining, processing, manufacturing, transport, installation and supplementation of whirlygigs. I mean, where would Jay be without all that Victorian brown coal?

            Hey…I also forgot about the “fossil” fuels involved in dismantling and carting the bludgers away. (I won’t talk about the lashings of diesel required for hacking up and carting away all the concrete and buried wiring, because nobody does that. The bases will be there in aeternitate. Which is kinda religious, like environmentalism as opposed to actual conservation.)

            It’ll be funny when we’re all dependent on imported diesel for our “temporary” and “transitional” energy needs…and then the kissing really stops in the Middle East. Not funny ha-ha, but funny.


  • #

    Remember when wind proponents used to talk about certainty in the rules and regulations so the investors would be willing to risk their capital? That “certainty” was guaranteed profitability which if expressed more clearly would have been tougher for the pols to swallow. And risk of capital? There was none. It’s remarkable how much system gaming comes with sustainable solutions. Remember when 47% of the European ETS money was being spent on making and destroying HCFC’s in China? It’s no wonder China pays lip service to sustainability.


  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Hmmm. Personalize the profits, socialize the losses. Crony capitalism at its finest.
    Argument immediately invalid if I make a Hitler reference, but that’s
    invalid anyhow. What I’m really looking at is Krupp or IG Farben.
    Or, for that matter ‘insurance’ under Obamacare.
    Here’s a truly radical thought.

    Assume we accept society taking care of those who can’t help themselves.
    Suppose we accept that pols won’t ever resist spreading more goodies to those not in need, to buy votes.
    How about a constitutional amendment that the only permissable federal aid is in the form of vouchers
    given to individuals to consume with in an unfettered marketplace.

    The essence of the left is that we can’t live our lives properly unless it is done under their direction.
    I don’t care if it’s windmills, taxi medallions, or health insurance: Reagan was right. “I’m from the government and I’m here
    to help you are the most terrifying words in the English language.


    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Richard Ilfield:
      the politicians propose and the public ‘servants’ dispose. Can you name any accepted proposal that has resulted in LESS Regulation and LESS public servants.
      I am reminded of the story from 1959 of a backbencher (in a Tory landslide) asking why it was necessary for a public servant to be escorted by guards from the Foreign Office to the bank 5 evenings a week to have a locked brief case filled with money chained to his wrist and then be escorted back to the Foreign Office basement to be locked in a vault overnight before being escorted back to the Bank in the morning to return the briefcase. The vault was large enough for a table and chairs, a camp bed, lighting and cooking facilities (also apparently a radio).
      After immense pressure this turned on a WE (approx. 1909) when the then Foreign Secretary Lord Grey had to visit Paris urgently after the banks were closed. He solved his cash shortage by visiting his friend Lord Rothschild who extracted a bundle of notes from the bowl in the foyer left there in case family members needed some small change. On his return Lord Grey repaid the loan and issued an order that henceforth a suitable sum should be kept in the Foreign Office premises in case the foreign Secretary needed same.
      This was parleyed into decades of overtime for F.O. staff as the one locked up overnight in temporary comfort was entitled to 16 hours overtime and time off in lieue. Why the sum could not have been placed in the vault as happened at week ends was not disclosed.


      • #
        Will Janoschka

        “the politicians propose and the public ‘servants’ dispose. Can you name any accepted proposal that has resulted in LESS Regulation and LESS public servants.”

        Never! GB and also AU have a wonderful Monarch that can ‘reluctantly’ eliminate\dissolve any non functioning parts or the whole government of both places. You are so lucky! Implore the Queen to dissolve whatever is needed; and start over with new idiots not ‘yet’ so corrupted!
        Please pity the USA that long ago discarded such now needed Monarch!
        USA folk are so damned smardt! 🙂


      • #
        Will Janoschka

        Far from dividing; every cruel insulting name eventually turns into a badge of HONOR!
        I do admit I are a white Anglo-Saxon male of German\Polish (kraut\pollack) decent! So what!
        I am honored having both parents using the (threat) hickory stick to help infants become persons!
        I graduated from hi-school with scholarship to Michigan state university. They held that until I got out of the US-NAVY. WoW!
        Mom and Pops were so gentle with me! Got out of the Navy and received a BSEE from MSU. Since then many rewards but still struggle to survive! So now what punk?
        H/T to Konrad who understands.
        All the best!-will-


    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      In the military, some key posts must be manned 24×7 in case a quick response to “something” might be required.

      During the day-time watches, regular tasks are performed by the persons manning these posts. But during the night time watch, which lasts from eleven o’clock at night until seven o’clock the next day the person on watch is permitted to sleep.

      Given that the person on watch gets the entire next working day off, the night-time watch gives an excellent way of sleeping off a hangover from the night before, whilst still avoiding any real work.

      It is probably just as well that “something” never occurred.


  • #

    a few relevant pieces, including from the pro-“renewables” corner:

    read the comments at RenewEconomy:

    11 Aug: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: It’s absurd. But consumers may be better off quitting the grid

    10 Aug: UK Telegraph: Jillian Ambrose: Dong Energy’s oil exit pays off as offshore turbines begin spinning
    Meanwhile the company is preparing for the next round of auctions for offshore wind financial support. Plunging technology costs mean the reverse auction process is expected to deliver prices around half the level of Dong’s early projects, which reached around £150 per megawatt hour…

    11 Aug: BozemanDailyChronicle: NWE’s bad bets have cost consumers millions
    By Travis Kavulla
    (Travis Kavulla, of Great Falls, is the vice chairman of the Montana Public Service Commission)
    NorthWestern Energy’s recent statements likening my colleagues to “children in need of discipline by a parent” took me aback. This rhetoric is unprofessional and incorrect.

    NorthWestern is unhappy with a series of recent PSC decisions. Specifically, the PSC has determined that unless a new power plant can demonstrate benefits to consumers within 10 years, it should not be pre-approved by the PSC.

    NorthWestern is a legal monopoly. It is allowed to charge customers rates based on whatever it spends, so long as the PSC signs off before it buys a power plant. Whether the investment turns out to be a good bet or a bad bet does not matter to NorthWestern’s bottom line. It gets paid either way…


  • #

    Exactly the same in Australia!

    You have to buy certificates, at $895 a Mwhr or 8.5c kw/hr but that is in addition to buying electricity. This money is for sausage production and money goes to the windfarm whether they sell or not, no matter when the power is produced.

    Any income from sale of electricity is in addition to mandatory payment for the certificates. Even the certificates do not exist. They are trades on a computer system run by the Clean Energy Authority, so you do not even get Carbon indulgences. It is the world’s biggest carbon tax x 20, $400 a tonne at retail for Natural gas and $200 a tonne for coal. Ten times Gillard’s Carbon Tax.

    Consider our carbon tax is double on Natural Gas per tonne of Carbon Dioxide. So it is a far bigger tax on gas. Governments wonder why gas is so expensive and gas in particular? They might also wonder why middle men, even State Governments are making record profits selling electricity? We have a class of politician who would wonder if their pants were on fire and have to ask a consultant.

    For solar panels, installers get cash around $8000 a system. Our money. This is 15 years Carbon Tax in advance, despite the fact that for the first 8 years the solar panel is just paying back for the Carbon Dioxide cost of manufacture. Then we are forced to buy these lunchtime sausages which no one wants. A poor analogy as sausages are more popular at lunch time. People really want electricity at 6am and 6pm, not 12pm, but who cares?

    We are paying to save the planet from Climate Change. When CO2 steadfastly refuses to change, we keep paying. This is an absolute ripoff monstrous tax which is wrecking this country and no politician understands why electricity is so expensive? Really? Weatherill blames the banks, the market, the grid, everyone else. He might even be slightly more unpopular than Daniel Andrews in Victoria. Now our Labor Green PM wants a CET. You would think the RET did not exist.


    • #

      Sorry, $84.0. Typo. The prices are here


      • #
        Graeme No.3

        As I posted in The Australian:

        Frydenberg must be very dim if he cannot grasp

        Grid before RET = cheaper reliable electricity.
        Grid plus RET = expensive electricity with unreliability (blackouts)

        It seems that hysterical claims that renewables are cheaper than conventional methods have brainwashed our politicians. The truth is that the current wholesale price aplies only to conventional generation ($85-115 depending on State) whereas renewables cost that PLUS the RET Certificate ($85-90) or near double.
        Indeed before the RET coal fired stations pumped out power at $35-45 a MWh year after year. Thanks to variable renewables cutting their market and forcing them to provide (unpaid) backup the cost of electricity has more than doubled. Indeed if you figure renewables at $180 per MWh (the current profitable arangement) with coal fired at $40 an hour you have a ready explanation for the rise in electricity bills. And the recent rise is for roughly 10% renewables. With both major parties aiming for far higher levels of renewables it is plain that electricity bills will escalate. Not only that but the rise will affect food prices, close small businesses and drive industry offshore. Almost certainly a depression looms within 12 months. And we have to pay our politicians to achieve this.
        WTPFM ! (Words That Pass moderation Fail Me).


      • #

        Thanks, TdeF. Very interesting. 8.5 cents for ‘sausages’ added to your bill.

        On the site you linked to:

        It turns out the answer to contain power prices is competition from more renewable energy and energy efficiency. Co-incidentally this is also the answer to deliver the government’s emission reduction goals.

        Tony from Oz will have conniptions.

        A new paper released by energy market analysts Tristan Edis and Ric Brazzale finds that over the past two years Australia’s east coast National Electricity Market has experienced a profound, decisive and permanent unravelling of conditions that kept Australia’s east coast wholesale power prices low by international standards.

        Under the guise of reducing the cost of living, the Federal Government has abolished the carbon tax, wound back the Renewable Energy Target by a fifth, while also freezing energy efficiency standards.
        Yet prices for power on the forward electricity contract market are now trading at levels double what the wholesale market price was when the carbon tax was in place. They are now some of the highest in industrialised world.

        They’re blaming the abolition of the carbon tax and a winding back of the RET for the increased cost of electricity.

        Louis Carroll, where are you? I want out!


        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Typical base-over-apex thinking.

          Here is a novel and different approach: What say, we deliver electrical power to the general domestic household consumer at the minimum price of generation from, say, hydro generation (which has low operating costs).

          All non-domestic power attracts the government imposts, such as the RET and the Politicians Christmas Club. This must be paid by the industrial users, who will pass that on to the end consumers, who have the choice of paying the extra margin placed on whatever they purchase, by the supply chain, or forgoing the purchase all together. Good for sustainability, good for the environment, good for the economy.

          I am semi-lucid, for once. Does that make sense?


        • #

          Fiji Dave, the 8.5c is at wholesale. The rule of business is to double your costs, so 17c at retail!. No wonder the middle men are making squillions.

          The justification for doubling your inputs is the cost of money and labour, in advance of payment. Sometimes you double your costs and still make a loss.

          However with electricity this is not true. You are just a middleman and do nothing. Better, you do not have to surrender the certificates in advance so you can collect the invoice today, earn interest on the cash and pay for the LGCs later! You even make interest on the cash flow for nothing.

          This all makes the middlemen rich. You may have noted that AGL announced a 1 Billion profit. Of course this makes the product unaffordable, but where are the poor consumers going to go? Ha! Windfarms? Neither windfarms nor solar are on demand electricity. Solar does not work when you want it and Goldilocks windfarms work only when they like not when you like.

          So you are paying in advance for a right to buy wind and solar power which is never there when you want it and so far and cannot be stored currently if ever. Then when you do buy the windpower, even when you do not want it, you pay double for the actual power as windpower is NOT cheaper than coal.

          As a wholesale carbon tax, the RET cripples everyone downstream, every product, every service. Even the government, your government has to pay more for electricity, say for hospitals or lighting. More taxes. So while the Queensland Government is thrilled with the profits from electricity generation, they should check their costs for the extra 5,000 people they have hired.

          Then you get the silent subsidies at state level to keep businesses going. Billions, often to overseas companies like American Alcoa and Japanese Mitsui and French Engie and Dutch Nyrstar. Billions. To keep jobs making products which are otherwise too expensive to sell thanks to outrageous power prices. Plus now we have 30,000 families receiving payments for electricity they can no longer afford. A river of money.

          Finally, at least half of this cash vanishes overseas forever, so unlike a domestic Carbon tax , we Australians see no benefit whatsoever. Help! We are being robbed. The robbers are government licenced and administered by the Clean Energy Commission no less. Repeal the RET. The system would to normal quickly.

          If the government wants to build windmills, announce it in the budget which is already $20Billion a year in debt, not counting the while elephant NBN which is $60Billlion in debt. Total debt is now over $500Billion under Malcolm’s Liberals. We had no debt under Howard.

          Then you have Turnbull’s dreams, his second airport a Badgerys Creek, his Very Fast Train, his Snowy Mountain II, his Gonski II. The only thing missing are more pink batts, but they were only $2.5Bn. Now we have a postal plebiscite on gay marriage. Why? Surely the government has better things to do than debate the rights of gay people, a lifestyle choice which should not even be a question for government. A civil union is legal in every state.

          Repeal the RET. Now!


    • #

      TdeF – “This money is for sausage production and money goes to the windfarm whether they sell or not.”
      Not my understanding. The certificates they receive are based on MWhr delivered into the grid. So if the wind isn’t blowing, they receive nothing.
      However, I don’t know what the situation is if they are requested to reduce production to maintain grid stability.


      • #

        The wording of the explanation has changed subtly but significantly on government sites recently. Previously it was made clear that any payment for electricity sold was in addition to the income from the creation of LGCs. Now they are implying that the power has to be sold to qualify for a certificate.

        Even today the wording is “Accredited renewable energy power stations are entitled to create large-scale generation certificates based on the amount of eligible renewable electricity they produce above their baseline.” It does not say SOLD. (the baseline was pre 1997)

        Or in the Act

        18 Creating certificates for additional renewable electricity
        (1) The nominated person for an accredited power station may create a certificate for each whole MWh of electricity generated by the power station during a year that is in excess of the power station’s 1997 eligible renewable power baseline.

        Again legally, there is no mention of the word SOLD.


        • #

          This is what Jo’s article is saying about electricity in Scotland.

          “And here’s the really amazing thing: even when the lorries can’t cope or there is no demand for sausages, the factory gets paid. Indeed, they get paid more for not sending the sausages to the shops than for sending them. This is such great business that the factory is actually building an extension, so it can threaten to make even more unwanted sausages.”


  • #

    I think I know where all those sausages are going, a pig with its snout in the trough has to eat something


  • #

    One can’t help be reminded of the Yes Minister British sausage episode, where EU mandates threatened to stop the British making their own sausages.


  • #


    10 Aug: BBC: Matt McGrath: Climate change has shifted the timing of European floods
    Climate change has had a significant impact on the timing of river floods across Europe over the past 50 years, according to a new study.
    In some regions, such as southern England, floods are now occurring 15 days earlier than they did half a century ago.
    But the changes ***aren’t uniform, with rivers around the North Sea seeing floods delayed by around eight days…

    This new study looks at this issue in some depth, by creating a Europe-wide database of observations from 4,262 hydrometric stations in 38 countries, dating back to 1960…
    “It’s the interplay between extreme rainfall and the abundance of rainfall,” lead author Prof Günter Blöschl, from the Technical University of Vienna, told BBC News…
    Prof Blöschl says that this study shows clear evidence of the impact of human-induced climate change in many regions – but there are still some areas of uncertainty.
    “Where the human imprint is obvious is in the northeast of Europe. It is quite a direct link, with a warming climate and earlier snow melt,” he said.
    “However, the areas impacted by the NAO are more difficult to attribute to anthropogenic global warming. The jury is still out on that aspect.”…


    11 Aug: NYT: Mike Ives: North Korea Aside, Guam Faces Another Threat: Climate Change
    The island of Guam made rare headlines this week when North Korea, responding to blustery language from President Trump, threatened to fire four ballistic missiles into waters near the American territory’s shores…

    Scientists in Guam, however, say they have at least one other major threat in mind: climate change.
    Like other Pacific islands, Guam may be affected in the coming decades as climate change prompts shifts in weather, temperature and oceanic acidity, according to the EPA.

    Experts said in interviews that the primary consequences may include people suffering heat stress because of an increase in heat waves, a rise in the intensity of tropical storms, and the damage or destruction of Guam’s exceptionally biodiverse coral reefs…


  • #
    a happy little debunker

    It is not a British sausage – it is an Emulsified High-Fat Offal Tube.


  • #
    James Bradley

    Our wind farms sell their sausages off the the retail networks at twice the cost they charge their own customers… and our retail networks have to buy them or buy them off the government.


  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T More UK government sausages

    “The Social Costs of Air Pollution from Cars in the UK”


  • #

    The subsidies are also a spur to Scottish Independence.
    The problem for Scotland is that on its own it would have a Government deficit of around 12% of GDP – or around £20bn.
    Until 2014, the revenue from North Sea Oil was about £6-9bn, but with the oil price collapse is down to near zero. (see Telegraph article)
    The subsidies for onshore wind farms are about £45 MWh and up to double that for offshore. The 5700 MW capacity working at 30% capacity would generate £6bn in subsidies. More if you include off-shore wind. When the wind does not blow, it is English mostly non-subsidised gas, coal and nuclear that supply Scotland. So it is a nice little earner for Scotland. Renewables do not close the gap on the Government Deficit by nearly as much as £6bn, but without renewables socialist Scottish Nationalism is dead.


    • #

      So the support for Global Climate Warming Change. And direct EU subsidies to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clever bureaucrats in Brussells rewarding the small players for staying in the game. We have the same with Adelaide. They get all the windmills. We pay for them. The reality is that they do not work very well and everyone loses. The funny thing is that there is plenty of energy in these areas and they have been turned into economic baskets cases by the Greens who have covered deserts and mountains with endless windmills and high voltage powerline so as to preserve the untrammeled vistas. Does no one see a problem with that?


      • #

        Everybody does not lose. The politicians get status; ideologues a false sense of saving the world; the wind farm operators get steady and high returns on their investments; as do already wealthy landowners who rent them the land. But society as a whole is a massive net loser.


        • #

          That’s positive. My belief is that many of the ideologues have no interest in saving the world. That is their public position.
          Their real purpose is much more sinister. There have always been such people.


  • #
    el gordo

    Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in Africa have been good for Beijing and they thank socialist Christiana Figueres for her effort.


  • #

    Only a hundred years ago, no one had electricity. Or radio or telephones or iphones or computers or microwaves or dishwashers or electric transport or cars with starter motors and generators and headlights and … Energy was from steam engines, steam shovels, steam locomotives, cable cars pulled with steam power, high pressure water driven by steam power. Coal not only powered the machines, it powered our societies making multi storey building possible. Even in the 1960s there were water operated steam driven lifts operating in Melbourne and London.

    It took the people who hate modern society and want communism to invent a way to cripple us. A big tax on electricity making the power unaffordable. They blame the industrial revolution for wrecking the planet with an appalling 0.8C of unnatural warming. So stop the world.

    This has worked. It took from 2000 to 2014 for the LGCs to bite, but now they do. $85 each. For nothing. At wholesale.

    Consider though that 1.9Million people work for our governments, maybe over 2million with councils. With 10million Australians in full time employment, that’s 20% of the government. Maybe another 20% work for institutions wholly government funded like wages for private schools, medicare for private hospitals and subsidies for Alcoa and now we Victorians own a loss making timber mill, to save the trees.

    The wages have gone up an unprecedented 25% in the last five years, far outstripping public sector wages. Yes, they pay tax but we have to give them the money to pay the tax. Most importantly their electricity bills have gone through the roof too and we have to pay that as well. Consider how much of our taxes now go to pay cash for the RET, only to flee overseas or enrich private foreign companies.

    How much has the RET cost Australia? Just the $6Billion in taxes for nothing? No, far more. All for nothing, a fake idea that in the thesis of our previous Minister for the Environment until last year was “make the polluters pay”.

    We are paying and paying and paying. For nothing. Fake news, fake warming and fake science but a very real and massive cost intended to push us back to steam engines and high pressure water for power delivery. We might get our cable cars back though.


    • #

      Actually we could not even have steam engines. Malcolm’s new CET Carbon Emissions Tax will kill that too.

      We are not allowed chop down trees or even lift litter from the forest floor or fish or graze cattle. What do the Greens actually want people to do without energy, food or heat? Or is that their solution to overpopulation, in Australia which imports over 1 Million bicycles a year. None made here. Or aircraft. Or cars. Or ships. Or submarines. Or much else soon, steel, aluminium, lead, zinc, petrol. Steel though may be rescued by another overseas company. If you cannot shut it down, sell it.

      The sausage factories are moving overseas with our cash. We send the billions overseas and get no sausages.


      • #

        A weak and fearful mind will always find security in a soylent green sausage.


      • #

        Right on TdeF. Not even hunter gatherers, not allowed to eat meat so just gatherers.


        • #

          I guess if the Greens have their way, the sausages we get will just get smaller and smaller until we are vegetarians. The Greens are taking the long term view on coal and sausages. If we will not stop using coal, they will tax it out of existence. Meat too. So now they are trying the incredible story that if we eat less meat, we will save the plant a bit more? Politicians are desperate for the Green vote, so sausages will go up in price while the volume goes down. Best of all, we pay and get no sausages at all.


      • #

        The sausage factories are moving overseas with our cash. We send the billions overseas and get no sausages.

        Should make it easy to follow the money then.
        All part of the wider plan to eradicate the concept of a country.
        Pulverize the economy, add UN Globocult open borders policy, whisk in destabilising social policies, fold carefully with incompetent politicians, add a mix of catastrophe spice, blend well with a large amount of micro-regulation. Finally, add a garish multicoloured lay of icing.


  • #

    11 Aug: BBC: Anger over ‘untrue’ climate change claims
    By Matt McGrath
    Scientists have responded furiously to claims about climate change made in a live BBC radio interview.
    Experts told BBC News that the assertions made by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson on Radio 4’s Today programme were simply untrue.
    Lord Lawson had claimed that global temperatures had “slightly declined” over the past 10 years.
    However, scientists working in the field said the records showed the complete opposite to be the case.

    ***AUDIO: 2mins10secs: Lord Lawson’s claims about climate change are “simply not true”, says the Met Office’s Peter Stott

    But speaking in a follow-up discussion on Friday morning (LINK), Dr Peter Stott from the UK Met Office said the former Chancellor had got the facts wrong.
    “We know that 2016 was the warmest on record, over a degree warmer than late 19th Century levels, so this claim that we heard from Nigel Lawson that there’s been cooling is simply not true,” he told the BBC.
    His view was echoed by Prof Richard Betts from the University of Exeter.
    “The official figures do not show that the global mean temperature ‘has slightly declined’. In fact, they show the opposite – global mean temperature has increased during the past 10 years,” he said in a statement.
    “The last three years were warmer than the previous seven, and indeed were the warmest on record, and this year is also shaping up to be nearly as warm (probably not quite as warm as last year since the influence of the El Nino has passed, but still a very warm year).”

    PHOTO CAPTION: Former US Vice President Al Gore is promoting his new climate change film in London.

    On Thursday, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its 2016 State of the Climate (LINK) report, stating that the year was the warmest in 137 years of record keeping.
    All over the planet, the peer reviewed study found strong evidence of ongoing warming linked to human activities. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hit new highs, as did global sea levels, while at both poles the extent of sea-ice hit new lows…

    ‘Talking nonsense’
    On the programme, Mr Gore made the economic case for renewable energy and said that “climate-related extreme weather events have grown far more numerous and far more destructive” in the 10 years since the first film…
    It was suggested to the former Democratic presidential contender that he was going further than the scientific consensus but he said researchers around the world were “virtually unanimous on this and have been for decades”, adding that “record downpours” in the UK were a result of climate change.
    Lord Lawson was asked why he thought Mr Gore was, in his words, “talking complete nonsense”…

    PETER STOTT: “If you take the global picture, the IPCC said very clearly that it is very ***likely that human influence has contributed to observed global-scale changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes,” he told the Today programme.
    “If you take the global picture and look at the global fingerprint – yes, you can attribute that.”…

    Many scientists took to Twitter to express their dismay at the airing of what they say were false claims.
    Physicist and BBC presenter Professor Brian Cox said it was “irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science”.
    Fellow physicist and broadcaster Jim al-Khalili tweeted: “For @BBCr4today to bring on Lord Lawson ‘in the name of balance’ on climate change is both ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on you.”
    He added: “There should be NO debate anymore about climate change. We (the world minus Trump/Lawson et al) have moved on.”

    In a statement, the BBC said: “The BBC’s role is to hear different views so listeners are informed about all sides of debate and we are required to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality.”


    • #

      so chilly some nights at the World Athletics championships, commentators talked of how difficult it is for records to fall.
      one said “track and field are summer sports”, so we’ll have to wait for European championships in warmer climes to see better results:

      11 Aug: UK Express: UK weather: Three in ten families have switched on the HEATING this summer
      Three in ten families have switchd on the heating during Britain’s miserable summer, research revealed today
      by Michael Knowles
      The UK has faced wet and miserable conditions over recent weeks with temperatures falling as low as 2C in North West Scotland on Sunday night.
      June was the sixth wettest on record, according to the Met Office while July was the 24th wettest since 1910.
      And this led to more than eight million househaolds turning the heating on, withan estimated 4.6m famiies also considering it, according to a survey by energy price comparison site…

      Claire Osborne, energy expert, said: “It wouldn’t be the Great British summer without a certain amount of miserable weather, but the chilly conditions this year are enough to make anyone consider cranking up the thermostat…
      “It’s understandable given how cold it’s been over the past few weeks, but consumers need to consider the impact it will have on their energy bills.
      “Energy prices continue to rise and we know that over a third of bill payers are already worrying about the cost of keeping warm over the winter…

      One in three Brits said they would usually wait until the end of the school summer holidays in early September to consider switching the heating on.
      And three in ten have also dug out the winter woolies to cope with low temperatures.
      uSwitch said 20 per cent of the 2,000 adults surveyed had also ran hot baths just to warm up…
      And eleven per cent have put their winter duvet back on their bed and 8 per cent have unpacked their winter coat…

      Met Office spokeswoman Nicola Maxey told the Daily Express: “Rainfall for June was 55 per cent above average and July was 37 per cent above average.
      “And in the first ten days of August, rainfall is 43 per cent above average.
      “For the country as a whole, temperatures were around average, ***0.1 below average.”

      ***according to adjusted figures?


      • #

        8 Aug: NBC Bay Area: Snow in Squaw Valley Could Stick Around Until Winter
        It’s August, and there is still snow at Lake Tahoe. Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows on Monday posted a picture to Twitter indicating that “snow from last winter could stick around until the first snow of the 2017-18 [season] strikes.”


      • #

        ever see FakeNewsMSM report criticism of MSM inviting CAGW alarmists on, for decades, to push CAGW ?

        10 Aug: UK Independent: BBC’s Today programme criticised for inviting Nigel Lawson to come on and deny climate change
        The former politician said that temperature had actually declined – in contrast with all scientific findings
        by Andrew Griffin
        PHOTO CAPTION: Brian Cox (SEEMINGLY WITH HALO?) said that it was “irresponsible and highly misleading” to invite Lord Lawson ***TO GIVE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEBATE

        PHOTO GALLERY: 10 photographs to show to anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change

        Environmental ***experts including Carbon Brief fact-checked each of the claims and found that none of them were true…

        “For [the Today Programme] to bring on Lord Lawson ‘in the name of balance’ on climate change is both ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on you,” wrote Professor Khalili, a physicists and science broadcaster, who often makes programmes for the BBC.
        Brian Cox, who has also worked for the corporation, agreed with Professor Khalili. “Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science,” he wrote…

        The invitation was extended to Lord Lawson despite a BBC report in 2011 which found the corporation had irresponsibly covered climate change, and that it needed to do more to avoid presenting opposition to environmental science as an equally valid part of debate. That report has been followed up numerous times by the BBC and it was found that it had made some progress.

        Today discussed the BBC Trust’s findings on air at the time, debating the report’s claim that it “often gives undue prominence to ‘marginal opinions’”.

        More recently, the BBC was forced to apologise for a documentary that criticised the Met Office and said that it shouldn’t be investigating climate change. “In giving voice to climate-change sceptics, it failed to make clear that they are a minority voice, out of step with the scientific consensus, which we would normally expect on the occasion when we include such viewpoints,” it said.


        • #
          Fred Streeter

          The case against CAGW needs to be made by a scientist to have any credibility.

          Lawson is an economist – and, for those of us who suffered under his Chancellorship, not a very credible one.


          • #

            Brian Cox is a physicist, but a particle physicist and astronomer. That hardly qualifies him to comment on the weather let alone the climate. In Australia, his defence to a challenge on Global Warming was to quote NASA as the people who put men on the moon, with the clear implication that no one in NASA could be deceitful or politically motivated. In fact there are lots of retired NASA people who are speaking out against the idea of man made Global Warming and no one knows what man made Climate Change means if it is not Global Warming.

            It is odd to hear blind faith in the pronouncements of others from any scientist, the voice from authority argument from a scientist who should in his very nature be a skeptic who wants everything proven. That’s what being on the BBC does to people. The US has Bill Nye, mechanical engineer. Australia had Robyn Williams, British physics graduate and Tom Jones understudy. Would they have jobs if they voiced a different opinion. No. A bit like our Chief Scientist. They are political jobs.


          • #

            Fred, so many scientists cannot speak out. Certainly not if you work for NASA for example. There are few private scientists and most either do not care for this or dare not speak out. Dr Murry Selby is superbly qualified and lost his job immediately when he told that truth in Germany that CO2 is not correlated at all with temperature. He proved it. However his credit cards were immediately cancelled, his return ticket to Australia and his tenure. Coincidence apparently.

            Murry Selby has a number of excellent videos on Youtube. So have many other scientists. However there is also the problem that a lot of scientists do not like the limelight, are not good speakers and not used to aggressive debate and handling the typical leading questions thrown at anyone who questions their ‘Science’. The usual forum is to invite a skpetic to be abused by the audience while other panelists egg them on.

            So what has saved the skeptical cause is blogs like this, Youtube and the ability to access the data, as we have seen with the latest Bureau of Meteorology scandal for data adjustment, editing, deletion, homogenization, destruction. Trump and Abbott are the only ones who consider this all fabricated science. In Abbott’s word, crap.


      • #
        el gordo

        From a scientific perspective its down to a negative NAO.


    • #

      Amazing sophistry

      Lord Lawson had claimed that global temperatures had “slightly declined” over the past 10 years.

      Dr Peter Stott from the UK Met Office said the former Chancellor had got the facts wrong.
      “We know that 2016 was the warmest on record”
      ..this claim that we heard from Nigel Lawson that there’s been cooling is simply not true,” he told the BBC.
      “this year is also shaping up to be nearly as warm

      Dr Stott, when the temperature goes down, isn’t that called cooling? Apparently not.

      “probably not quite as warm as last year since the influence of the El Nino has passed, but still a very warm year.”

      So when the temperature was up, that was actually the influence of El Nino. Stange, we thought it was man made Global Warming?

      The word they must not utter, cannot say, must deny is ‘cooling’. Warming of even 0.001 is warming even if due to El Nino.
      Cooling of 0.001 is simply not ‘as warm’ and due to the lack of El Nino, not actual scientific cooling.
      Lord help us. This man could replace Sir Humphrey Applebee.


  • #

    I remember Peter Cook and Dudley Moore’s use of the word sausage. Every word starting with ‘s’ had to be sausage. So She Sells Sea Shells by the Sea Shore became Sausage Sausage Sausage by the Sausage Sausage.

    Problem is, no sausages. The country has been turned into a not sausage shop. All our sausages are imported. A bit like Monty Python’s Cheese shop. The government says you pay anyway. The sausage shop has to make a living. It is foreign owned.


  • #

    not a lot of comments, but worth a read too:

    11 Aug: UK Telegraph: Jillian Ambrose: Britain’s green tech boom in doubt as households put off by cost
    The energy industry’s bet on a green technology boom in British homes could be scuppered by consumer fears that fresh innovations designed to cut bills will prove too expensive.
    Major energy companies, rival suppliers and tech-based start-ups are all hoping to tap the emergence of new ‘green’ energy solutions, such as solar panels and electric vehicles, to create a booming market in the UK.

    But new research from YouGov shows that the vast majority of British homes are wary of high upfront costs, and indifferent to energy efficiency.
    The poll, commissioned by one of the country’s largest electricity distributors, shows that 91pc of homes have no green technology – such as solar panels, heat pump or electric vehicles – and 64pc say this is because they put off by the cost…

    The Government recently announced a major boost for battery technology development which could cut billions of pounds from energy bills if adopted widely…
    “It’s quite clear as a nation, we’re using more electricity,” said Steve Cox, director of engineering at Electricity North West.
    “To counter the effects of this, it’s critical that we take a combined approach; investing in renewable technologies to create more sustainable power, while making small changes to our consumption of energy so that we save what we can, wherever we can.”…
    A fifth of those surveyed said they are not able to heat their homes properly but 70pc have never sought advice on how to save energy at home and 39pc have admitted that nothing is stopping them from making efficiency savings.

    ***Maria Wardrobe, from the National Energy Action (NEA), said the country’s energy debate needs to shift from reducing energy prices to reducing energy demand…

    10 Aug: Guardian: Joey Gardiner: The rise of electric cars could leave us with a big battery waste problem
    Carmakers, recyclers and tech start ups are working to solve the question of how to deal with lithium-ion batteries when they wear out
    The number of electric cars in the world passed the 2m mark last year and the International Energy Agency estimates there will be 140m electric cars globally by 2030 if countries meet Paris climate agreement targets. This electric vehicle boom could leave 11m tonnes of spent lithium-ion batteries in need of recycling between now and 2030, according to Ajay Kochhar, CEO of Canadian battery recycling startup Li-Cycle…

    However, in the EU as few as 5% (pdf) of lithium-ion batteries are recycled. This has an environmental cost. Not only do the batteries carry a risk of giving off toxic gases if damaged, but core ingredients such as lithium and cobalt are finite and extraction can lead to water pollution and depletion among other environmental consequences…

    There are, however, grounds for optimism…READ ALL


  • #

    11 Aug: SanJoseMercuryNews: New map shows wind farms spreading rapidly across US
    52,000 large wind turbines in 41 states now generate twice as much electricity as in 2010
    By Paul Rogers
    The industry still has controversies. Turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year, and some residents fight their power lines and visual impacts. But wind advocates like to point out that more than 1 billion birds are killed by domestic house cats, and another billion are killed by flying into buildings.

    Through the second quarter of 2017, the U.S. now has 84,405 megawatts of installed wind power capacity, enough to power 25 million households, and twice as much as it had in 2010. That’s the result of lower prices from more efficient turbines, federal and state tax credits, and state laws that require a certain percentage of many states’ total electricity generation to come from renewable energy…
    The industry now employs more than 100,000 people in the United States…

    But how much green power is being generated? The latest numbers from the U.S. Energy Department show wind energy generates 6 percent of America’s electricity, about the same amount that all hydropower dams generate. By comparison, 34 percent comes from natural gas, 30 percent from coal, 20 percent from nuclear and 1 percent from solar.

    In California, which consumes virtually no coal, the numbers are different: All renewables make up 28 percent of in-state electricity generation, with natural gas at 50 percent, large hydropower at 12 percent, nuclear at 10 percent and coal less than 1 percent…READ ALL

    28 Jul: Bloomberg: Growth-Starved Utilities Have Found a New Way to Make Money
    By Chris Martin, Jim Polson, and Mark Chediak
    There’s a new model emerging for growth-starved utilities looking to profit from America’s solar and wind power boom.
    American Electric Power Co. is using it for a $4.5 billion deal that’ll land the U.S. utility owner a massive wind farm in Oklahoma and a high-voltage transmission line to deliver the power. NextEra Energy Inc.’s Florida unit is using it to build solar farms. And in April, the chief executive officer of Xcel Energy Inc. said he’d use it to help add 3.4 gigawatts of new wind energy over the next five years…
    “We keep wondering why utilities are always signing PPAs that pass the cost through to customers,” said Amy Grace, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “If you put it in your rate base, you can get a guaranteed return on it. There’s a big upside to ownership.”…READ ON


  • #
    el gordo

    Breaking Nooze

    ‘Malcolm Turnbull says South Australia’s energy plan is an “experiment” that should have been conducted privately.’



  • #

    11 Aug: Guardian: Australia faces potentially disastrous consequences of climate change, inquiry told
    Former defence force chief decries Australia’s response to climate challenge as a ‘manifest failure of leadership’
    by Ben Doherty and Michael Slezak
    Military and climate experts, including a former chief of the defence force, have warned that Australia faces potential “disastrous consequences” from climate change, including “revolving” natural disasters and the forced migration of tens of millions of people across the region, overwhelming security forces and government.

    Former defence force chief Adm Chris Barrie, now adjunct professor at the strategic and defence studies centre at the Australian National University, said in a submission (LINK) to a Senate inquiry that Australia’s ability to mitigate and respond to the impacts of climate change had been corrupted by political timidity: “Australia’s climate change credentials have suffered from a serious lack of political leadership”…

    Other experts, however, counselled against “alarmist” predictions and said the focus of climate change response should be on those people most acutely affected by it, rather than the security concerns of developed countries most able to respond.

    Barrie said the security threat of climate change was comparable to that posed by nuclear war, and said the Australian continent would be most affected by changing climate…
    Barrie posited a scenario in which the glaciers in the Tibetan Plateau and Himalayan-Hindu Kush ranges – which reliably deliver fresh water into China, the Mekong Delta, Myanmar, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan – would disappear…

    Scientists at the ARC Centre for Climate Extremes, led by Andy Pitman from the University of New South Wales, said in their submission that climate scientists could help the country prepare for these sorts of threats but that investments in the required work was not occurring…

    PDF: 11 PAGES: Submission to the Senate Inquiry into Implications of climate change for Australia’s national
    by Honorary Professor Admiral Chris Barrie AC RAN
    FROM PAGE 5 ONWARDS: It is also clear that global society must virtually decarbonise in the next 30-35 years. This means that
    most of the fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground because the burning of fossil fuels represents the most significant contributor to climate change…
    From today until 2050 we can emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to have a good chance of staying within a 2°C limit…
    Burning all fossil fuel reserves would lead to unprecedented changes in climate so severe that they will challenge the existence of our society as we know it today.
    We are as about in the past are now happening…

    Health: Heat causes more deaths than any other type of extreme weather event in Australia…
    Agriculture: Changing rainfall patterns and increasing risk of extreme heat and bushfire weather present challenges for Australian agriculture…

    In short, we must urgently build civil society around the structure of a sustainable planet in which the
    burden of human population does not deplete the earth’s resources and managers(sic) the environment responsibly.


  • #

    11 Aug: The Hill: Joe Concha: New York Times mocked for comparing threat of climate change and nuclear war
    The New York Times was mocked by social media users on Friday after the paper tweeted out a question asking which was the greater threat to Guam: a nuclear bomb threat from North Korea or climate change?…
    After the blowback, the Times sent a modified tweet removing the original question.
    “North Korea’s missiles may be one threat to Guam, but scientists are warning of another: climate change,” it reads…


  • #

    just as we had the rubbish about saving $1,500 if you switch suppliers – while not saying “PER YEAR” or “ANNUALLY”, even tho MSM wrote in their articles about quarterly bill costs, e.g:

    How to save money on your power bill: Australian Energy Regulator …
    The Advertiser-17 Jul. 2017
    “Since the 1 July 2017 price rises, customers in Adelaide could save $1500 if switching from the most expensive electricity”…

    Bloomberg omits “PER YEAR” or “ANNUALLY” from its headline, plus gives the impression any old “parked electric car” IS EARNING $$$:

    11 Aug: Bloomberg: Jess Shankleman: Parked Electric Cars Earn $1,530 From Europe’s Power Grids
    Trials in Denmark carried out by Nissan Motor Co. and Italy’s biggest utility Enel SpA showed how batteries inside electric cars could help balance supply and demand at times and provide a new revenue stream for those who own the vehicles.

    Technology linking vehicles to the grid marks another challenge for utilities already struggling to integrate wind and solar power into their distribution system. As the use of plug-in cars spreads, grid managers will have to pay closer attention to when motorists draw from the system and when they can smooth variable flows.

    “If you blindingly deploy in the market a massive number of electric cars without any visibility or control over the way they impact the electricity grid, you might create new problems,” said Francisco Carranza, director of energy services at Nissan Europe, in an interview with Bloomberg New Energy Finance…

    While the Tokyo-based automaker has trials with more than 100 cars across Europe, only those in Denmark are able to earn money by feeding power back into the grid. There, fleet operators collected about 1,300 euros ($1,530) a year using the two-way charge points, said Carranza.
    Restrictions on accessing the market in the U.K. means the company needs to reach about 150 cars before they can get paid for power sent back to the grid. That could be achieved by the end of this year, he said…

    FakeNewsMSM is the problem.


  • #

    AUDIO: 2mins07secs: 10 Aug: ScientificAmerican: Climate: 60-Second Science
    Climate Change Fires Up Polar Bear Treadmill
    By Emily Schwing
    (public radio reporter in interior Alaska covering mushing, Arctic science and happenings in the Far North)
    Sea ice is drifting faster in the Arctic—which means polar bears need to walk farther to stay in their native range…
    “Sea ice is now drifting faster.” George Durner is a research zoologist with the United States Geological Survey Polar Bear Research Program. He and colleagues compared sea ice conditions from 1987–1998 with those from 1999 to 2013.
    “And what we found was ice drift at the locations used by polar bears increased 30% in the Beaufort sea and 37% in the Chukchi sea.” That’s a problem because polar bears are homebodies—they prefer to stay in a specific range…
    “Throughout their range, they seem to have a sense of place”…

    The result: a large-scale polar bear treadmill. And all that walking requires extra fuel…ETC

    10 Aug: BloombergNewEnergyFinance: Green bonds: 2016 in review
    Green bonds issuance boomed in 2016, despite the slowdown in new clean energy investment…
    ◾Governments are about to enter the green bond market at scale…


  • #

    no matter how much CNN (and the rest of the FakeNewsMSM loathed people like George Shultz in the past, they LOVE them so long as they shill for the CAGW Industry:

    10 Aug: CNN: Mark Preston: The wise man Trump should listen to
    Without hesitation, George Shultz leaned forward in his chair and named two issues in a solemn tone: nuclear weapons, climate change. The subjects may seem oddly paired, unless you knew I had just asked him, “What keeps you up at night?”
    “Well, there are two things that can wipe us out,” said Shultz. “One is nuclear weapons and the other is climate change. I worry about both of those things.”
    It was surreal to hear Shultz, credited with helping President Ronald Reagan bring an end to the Cold War, offer such a blunt assessment about two issues dominating news coverage…

    “Actually, I don’t get very many requests from Washington,” Shultz said in an interview that will air for the first time this weekend on SiriusXM’s “Full Stop with Mark Preston.” I don’t think about it much. I got plenty to do here.”…

    Shultz’s clarion call on reducing nuclear weapons is only matched by his appeal for world leaders to take action on climate change and continue to fund research and development with both public and private sector investments.

    “Well, the CO2 that’s in the atmosphere, it’s going to stay there, but we can do a better job of keeping it down,” said Shultz, who noted the advances that have been made in perfecting solar power and electric cars…

    “In the mid-80s, we found a lot of scientists saying the ozone layer is depleting, and there were some who doubted it,” he said…
    “Instead of doing what we now do, which is try to destroy the people who don’t agree with you, (Reagan) put his arm around them and said ‘We respect you, but you do agree if it happened, it would be a catastrophe? So, why don’t we take out an insurance policy?'” he continued. “That didn’t get them on our side, but it got them off our back. Out of it we got the Montreal Protocol, which people now pretty much agree came along just in time, and it worked. So that’s the way to go about things.”…

    11 Aug: Daily Caller: Amber Athey: NYT Questions If Climate Change Is Worse Than Nuclear War
    Twitter users relentlessly mocked the NYT for asking whether nuclear war or climate change could be worse for the US territory…
    The outlet seemed to clean up the tweet later in the day…


  • #

    11 Aug: Guardian: The Australian’s environment editor, Graham Lloyd, sued over Peruvian eco-retreat
    A former partner in an Amazonian conservation project with Lloyd and his partner Vanessa Hunter is claiming more than $600,000 in damages and costs
    by Amanda Meade
    Cheryl Conway, who provided Lloyd and Hunter with more than $600,000 between 2013 and 2015 to establish the Lupunaluz Foundation and build the Lupunaluz Retreat, has filed an application in the federal court seeking damages for misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of contract.

    Lloyd, who is in Colombia reporting on the trial of the Australian Cassie Sainsbury on drug-smuggling charges, responded via email to a series of questions on the case, saying: “We are not aware of any federal court proceedings. We have not been served with any process. If we are served with any process it will be vigorously defended.”…

    According to the statement of claim filed in the Victorian division of the federal court on 1 August, Conway says she spent $566,756 on building the retreat and a further $48,704 on establishing the not-for-profit foundation.
    A New York-born, Melbourne-based artist and graphic designer, Conway claims the pair kept the land registered in their own names, despite leading her and other philanthropic donors to believe it was registered or leased to the joint venture…

    According to the Australian, Lloyd is a “fearless reporter of all sides of the environment debate”…
    He has been named by the Queensland One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts as one of the journalists who “show the courage to research the evidence” for climate change, alongside Alan Jones, News Corp and the Sky News commentator Andrew Bolt, and his colleague Chris Kenny at the Australian…READ ALL


  • #

    11 Aug: RenewEconomy: Sophie Vorrath: Another solar farm planned for Collinsville, as Blackrock buys in
    Two major solar projects slated for construction in northern Queensland have reached financial close this week, locking in development of another 200MW (AC) of large-scale solar generation near the state’s former coal hub of Collinsville.
    Edify Energy said on Friday that its 150MW Daydream – announced on Thursday – and now the 50MW (AC) Hayman solar farms in Queensland were set to be fully operational in 2018 after it secured “one of the largest solar portfolio financings to date in the Australian market,” with BlackRock Real Assets.

    The investment, which gives BlackRock a 90 per cent interest in the 2ooMW solar portfolio, marks the international investment company’s first foray into renewables, through a fund focused on investing in wind and solar globally.
    Edify will retain 10 per cent of the equity interest and provide the projects with construction and long-term asset management services…

    The two projects also have a combined $90 million in financial backing from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, as part of a syndicated debt facility involving the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and French investment bank Natixis.

    This week Edify inked a power purchase agreement with Origin Energy, the gen-tailer agreeing to buy the Daydream solar farm’s output and RECs until 2030. Hayman however, will operate as a merchant plant…

    Another 42MW solar farm is being developed by RATCH-Australia, at the site of the disused Collinsville coal-fired power station. All five projects have secured finance from the CEFC…READ ALL


  • #

    Tweet: Tristan Edis: Brilliant job by @theprojecttv explaining power price rises. 9 minutes dedicated to power market a brave thing for such a program.

    Twitter: 9 Aug: TheProjectTV: VIDEO: 9mins33secs: “Sick of getting screwed on electricity prices? Here’s why it’s happening and what you can do”. #TheProjectTV | By Waleed Aly & @twhittyer

    Twitter: 11 Aug: Brian Cox: My timeline today is a rich source of data on ‘climate skeptics’. 97.8% are men over age of 65 and average number of followers is 4.6.

    Reply: Paddy Burns: Flat earth brexiteers no doubt!

    Reply to Prof Brian Cox: Hard Brexit: What a supercilious and sneering remark ! You’ve become a modern-day Soapy Sam . Climate change isn’t a religion now, or is it ?

    Reply: Tim: Climate change is a fraud, probably the older people are the less gullible they are. #Maunderminimum I am 53 with 10,000 followers…


  • #

    Yeah, off topic I know, but who would have thought.

    I’m still doing this Base Load thing, and of interest was the earlier Thread of Joanne’s, which piqued my interest on power consumption.

    So, here in Oz, we now have six of them, well five really now Point Henry has closed and even Portland in Victoria is only operating at one quarter capacity.

    China has, umm, 120 Aluminium smelters.

    Why do we bother?



    • #

      Jobs. No matter how renewable energy pushes up electricity prices, it cannot be seen to destroy jobs. Green energy was supposed create jobs, not destroy them. You cannot make aluminium profitably with the world’s most expensive electricity. It is surprising that Portland is making anything at all. Daniel Andrews and Jay Weatherill should just buy it and pay people sitting down money. It would be cheaper. Give them jobs in the CSIRO researching Climate Change.


    • #

      Australian coal and iron ore is now the backbone of the South Korea shipbuilding industry, one of the largest in the world.


  • #

    My younger brother lives in a Glasgow suburb, but is a keen hill walker and mobile home enthusiast. A couple of years ago, when we met up for a joint holiday in Provence, I commented on how Scotland was being ruined by wind turbines. He quite angrily assured me that was not the case, so I dropped the subject.

    I have just emailed him the link to the article which Jo has provided, so it will be with some interest to see if I get a response. I recently posted on Instagram a picture of Stirling Castle surrounded in the background by wind turbines and there was not a cheep from my widespread family members who normally comment on all my postings.

    Looks like none of them like to face the truth!


    • #
      Ian Hill

      I have two younger brothers. I visited one of them two years ago and somehow we got to talking about the climate and he mentioned the need to “manage” carbon, a term I hadn’t heard before. When I laughed and asked “why” his wife dismissed me with “don’t be a sceptic Ian” in a way which immediately closed the subject.

      I read Dr Marohasy’s first sentence of the “Introduction” chapter in Climate Change The Facts 2017 and thought “yep, such family discussions are now taboo!”


    • #

      Peter, on my last visit to the UK in May of this year, I was appalled at the ‘welcome’ to GLA supplied by the acres of wind turbines as we were descending. They were the first thing visible between the clouds. On the way down to Cumbria some beautiful scenery was blighted by the wretched things (the same on the way back of course). There are so many blighting the Solway Firth it is unbelievable anyone could approve this.

      Cumbria is also blighted in many parts, ditto North Yorkshire. Flying into MAN also. Grrr.


  • #

    Unseasonable high temperatures today: CH9 Weather tonight, Saturday.

    21 Deg C is about average for the lower north coast of NSW this time of year.

    The drip, drip, drip, brain washing exercise of the MSM in intolerable.


  • #

    Branch out people to the blogs, spread the truth to the uneducated, indoctrinated.


  • #

    Here’s another scam aspect of the wind industry, also involving the UK. In Denmark, wind turbines earn their owners a subsidy for a certain number of years after installation. Once that period expires, so do the subsidies. Danish wind turbine operators are dismantling older turbines that no longer qualify for a subsidy, then shipping them to the UK and other countries for re-installation, and collecting a whole new round of subsidies for the same turbines.


    • #

      Remember when the Danes were mass-harvesting sand eels for fuel oil because some EU regulatory loophole made it cheaper? I guess the same things has been happening to American forests in British power plants. Never mind the flora and fauna, feel the regulation. (Sorry, I’m not supposed to say “regulation”. I’m supposed to say “target”.)

      Who will save the environment from the environmentalists?


  • #

    I describe our RET like this. Imagine if a government said to Coca Cola, that for every case of Coca Cola it sells, it has to pay Pepsi for two cases of Pepsi, but Pepsi only has to deliver to Coke an Invoice but not the Pepsi (certificate). In exchange for this the government also tells Coca Cola that all the shelves must be empty of Pepsi before it is allowed to sell any Coca Cola. Because no-one actually wants to drink Pepsi, the government then arranges the public to drink Pepsi by plain labelling Pepsi and Coke as “Cola”, so the public can’t choose between Pepsi and Coke, when they really just want to drink Coca Cola.

    This illustrates exactly what this unconstitutional madness does!


  • #

    11 Aug: WorcesterBusinessJournal: Acton couple charged over asking for $50M federal wind farm grant
    by Zachary Comeau
    An Acton couple are facing 30 years in prison after filing for more than $50 million in grants from the 2009 federal stimulus bill meant to spur the economy out of the Great Recession, in order to reimburse themselves for wind farm and biofuel projects the U.S. Department of Justice claims never happened.

    Christopher Condron, 45, and Jessica Metivier, 41, face three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government
    They were released on conditions in federal court in Boston Thursday, according to a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice…

    The couple are alleged to have submitted fraudulent application to the U.S. Department of the Treasury for energy grants as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided tax-free grants to individuals and businesses who utilize wind farms and gasification systems to convert trash into electricity.
    Over a four-year period from May 2009 to June 2013, the couple submitted grant applications on behalf of four different companies: Acton Bio Energy, Concord Nurseries, Kansas Green Energy and Ocean Wave Energy, the government alleges…

    They received grants for more than $8 million, according to a statement.

    10 Aug: BelfastNewsLetter: Wilson warns of ‘sinister’ campaign to back wind turbines plan
    A DUP MP has warned of a “sinister and fraudulent” campaign to drum up support for a controversial wind turbine development in Co Antrim.
    An application has been lodged by Larne-based company Wind NI to construct seven massive, 400 metre-high turbines at a scenic beauty spot in the Antrim Hills.

    The proposal has been met with a chorus of condemnation, with objectors fearing the development, near the isolated village of Carnalbanagh, would be a blight on the picturesque landscape.
    Among those opposed to the scheme is former environment minister, Sammy Wilson, who claimed the wind farm would “desecrate” the local landscape.

    But the East Antrim MP also revealed he had been “disturbed” to have received bogus letters purporting to come from local residents, asking him to support the application.He explained:
    “When these residents received my reply, they were appalled because they were actually in opposition to the proposal and did not want these massive industrial turbines to be erected in the area.

    “They were appalled that their names had been used, that letters had been sent on their behalf purporting to claim that as local residents they welcomed the proposal.
    “It is rather sinister that someone who clearly wishes this application to succeed has been prepared to fraudulently use their neighbours’ names to try and give the impression there is community support for this development.”

    The News Letter contacted applicants Wind NI for a comment, but they were unable to respond at the time of going to press.


  • #

    comment in moderation re “Acton couple charged over asking for $50M federal wind farm grant”

    10 Aug: Law360: RBS Sued For £153M Over Carbon Credit Fraud Claims
    By Richard Crump
    Royal Bank of Scotland PLC is being sued for around £153.4 million ($199 million) by liquidators at accountancy firm Grant Thornton acting on behalf of Bilta U.K. Ltd. and other companies over the bank’s alleged role in a vast carbon trading tax fraud.

    The amended claim, submitted to London’s High Court on July 21 and seen by Law360 on Thursday, alleges that two traders employed at the bank’s commodities trading division, Mercuria, known as RBS Sempra Energy Europe Ltd., carried out a series of carousel fraud transactions.

    Under the scheme carbon credits — an emissions permit issued under European Union carbon trading rules — were imported into the U.K. by allegedly sham companies that were sold on to other supposedly fake firms. Creditors lost out when the companies later entered liquidation.

    The claim alleges that the RBS traders, Andrew Gygax and Jonathan Shain, who have since left the firm, should have been aware that the trades were suspicious and could represent a potential VAT fraud, and that the bank is liable to pay compensation…

    RBS acquired around 44 million carbon credits between June and July 2009, mainly from CarbonDesk Ltd., a broker, which represented a sudden increase and unprecedented volume of trading with the firm for which there was “no commercially sensible explanation,” according to court documents.

    The claim also cites a report submitted to the U.K. Serious Organised Crime Agency by a member of the bank’s anti-money laundering unit at the start of July 2009 that concluded that CarbonDesk was probably “a conduit for VAT fraudsters.” It also refers to an internal July 3 email from the head of the unit stating that RBS Sempra was “being targeted by carousel trading fraudsters.”…

    An RBS spokesman said, “We strongly deny the allegations made and we will be vigorously defending the claim in court.”…


  • #

    6 Aug: Daily Mail: Banned for 11 years… the £1m bogus investment cheat who confessed
    By Tony Hetherington
    Brett Jolly, 56, is disqualified from running any British company for the next 11 years, beginning last Thursday.
    He confessed to investigators from the Insolvency Service that he allowed carbon credit investment firm Anglo Capital Partners Limited to trade ‘with a lack of commercial probity’.
    Investors were told to expect returns of up to 25 per cent when the truth was that Jolly’s company had already marked up the price of the carbon credits by as much as 594 per cent.

    Also, there was never a two-way market that would allow buyers to turn their certificates back into cash at any price.
    Jolly, of Southend-on-Sea, admitted his sales staff lied to investors. In a statement to the Insolvency Service, he confessed: ‘Anglo’s salespeople told those they called that they were ‘bankers’, or were calling from a ‘bank’.’ Victims lost at least £1.02 million.

    I warned in 2013 that Jolly’s company was falsely claiming that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne had virtually guaranteed that carbon credits would show a profit within months…

    Jolly was also linked to Green Planet Investment. It was closed down by the High Court after investigators found it was using false claims to raise £14 million, said to be for the development of a leisure resort in Brazil. The resort was never built…

    Jolly is now believed to be in the Far East.


  • #


    11 Aug: NewAmerican: William F. Jasper: “Energy Hog” Al Gore: New Film Flops, But He’s Still Living Large
    Do What I Say, NOT What I Do
    The website for his film calls on visitors to take the “PLEDGE TO #BEINCONVENIENT,” which includes a pledge to: “Use my choice to switch my home/business/community/university to 100% renewable energy.” But don’t expect Mr. Gore to inconvenience himself or interrupt his lavish lifestyle…

    As to be expected, the “green” Fake News establishment has, for the most part, ignored Al Gore’s Inconvenient Reality, essentially giving the hypocritical preacher a free pass on his blatant betrayal of the core dogma he prescribes for everyone else. Gore has plenty of enviro pals in the media who rushed to his defense, of course, offering rationalizations for his sins of omission and commission. One of the most ludicrous attempts in the rationalization genre comes from the New Republic’s Emily Atkin, who penned a convoluted and confused argument titled “Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter.” …READ ALL

    7 Aug: Spiked: Rob Lyons: Rising energy bills: the price of green obsessions
    It’s government policy, not big business, that’s hiking up energy prices
    The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) website provides breakdowns of suppliers’ costs and overall pre-tax profit. According to the latest figures, for supplying gas, the big energy suppliers have done well of late, making a return of 10 per cent before tax. On electricity, however, the companies have actually been losing money – 1.72 per cent before tax. Looking at dual-fuel bills, combining both gas and electricity, the companies have a pre-tax profit margin of 4.26 per cent. That’s higher than in some industries, like supermarkets, where profit margins have fallen to close to three per cent, but it’s peanuts compared with the profit margins of tech companies like Apple, Microsoft or Google, which are more like 26 per cent.

    Another figure in those Ofgem tables is more instructive: on dual-fuel bills the cost of ‘environmental and social obligation costs’ is 8.18 per cent – basically double the profit margin. There is also value-added tax (VAT), which comes out at 4.76 per cent in these figures. These costs are imposed by the government – they’re not due to the world price of energy, distribution costs or general company costs. And these are costs the government has it within its power to do something about…

    It’s one thing to give low-carbon energy sources a helping hand to establish themselves. But why are we continuing to subsidise wind and solar power? Why are we penalising fossil-fuel energy sources? If renewables are rapidly becoming cheaper and more efficient, as green-energy proponents claim, surely they can now compete? Apparently not.

    If we don’t do something quickly, things are going to get even worse. As I noted back in March, the Committee on Climate Change – the government’s climate-policy watchdog – says green policies already add an average of £105 to dual-fuel bills. Meeting future targets will pretty much double that cost by 2030. Moreover, rising energy prices affect the cost of everything else we buy. So we’re paying more across the board for those green policies…


  • #

    TdeF, thanks for your useful research re the LRET. I know the legislation appears to say that large renewable generators get to create one LRET certificate per MWh ‘generated’, but I still cannot understand how the worked example using a hypothetical 100 MWh (nameplate) generator, as shown on the CER website here ( calculates that it is eligible for 90 certificates (=1.8 certs / MWh) when it only delivered 50 MWh to the grid, at the same time on the same page it states that renewables generators are eligible for only one certificate per MWH delivered to the grid, see ‘DLEG is the net eligible electricity generated and exported to a distribution network, transmission network or a point of use.’.
    If the legislation says something different (as you cite in # then shouldn’t we be asking the CER (or the responsible Minister) to resolve this. After all, there were about 20 million of these certs created last year, currently worth about $1,800 million. If the formula is wrong (as I believe it is), then the subsidy was up to $800 million above what it should be. If on the other hand you are correct (that they get 1 cert per MWh produced (rather than delivered to the grid), then there is no need for the eligibility formula.


    • #

      You can see a public example from Hepburn Wind farm annual report.
      They declare annual generation 2015/16 financial year of 9872 MWhr with a 27.5% capacity factor, and revenue of $437k from electricity sales and $744k from certificate sales. So about $43/MWhr from the wholesale price and $74/MWhr from the certificate sales to retailers. That was from FY ending 2016. Since then wholesale prices have risen to over $100/MWhr, so net profit should certainly be on the increase from the $213k declared last year. Without certificate sales they would clearly have made a significant loss. So electricity consumers are subsidising Hepburn wind farm.


  • #

    Brilliant article.

    At least sausages could feed the poor if there was an excess … what good are windmills turning when they’re not needed?

    Enter Elon Musk, with a ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’. It’s super green to operate super large lithium and graphite mines powered by diesel and to continuously dump or recycle masses of expended industrial battery banks full of toxic chemicals, apparently.

    Racketeering, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a “racket”) to solve a problem that wouldn’t otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service. Racketeering as defined by the RICO act includes a list of 35 crimes. – Investopedia


  • #

    £1.8billion for an extra 2.2GW interconnect (to add to the existing 3.5GW Scotland-UK and 0.25GW Scotland-NI interconnects) compares pretty well with the £9.5billion that was foisted on the Scottish taxpayer to build the Torness reactor which they didn’t need and which was subsequently flogged off to a privatised french-run company.

    In fact, there is now a 650km Scotland-Norway interconnect being planned, too, to add to the UK-Ireland (1GW), UK-France (2GW), UK-Holland (1GW) connections.

    I’ll hold off commenting on Ridley’s yarn about how the Scottish electricity market works until after I’ve read up on it from a reliable source.


    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Since when have you followed reliable sources, Craig? If you did you wouldn’t say even half of what you post.


  • #

    I wrote a “cabbages” story a while ago: