Turnbull threw away the Lib’s best election strategy in the last election and almost lost. He couldn’t run a carbon tax scare like Abbott had (or Trump did even moreso). Now he can’t run a cheap electricity campaign in a nation where wallets are bleeding from power bills. It would be a gift campaign to mock the idea that wind and solar make prices cheaper — that’s a bubble desperate to be popped. But Malcolm’s campaign (if he survives that long) is a Santa tricky plan to have it all — lower emissions, lower prices, and more stability. And if you’ll believe that…
He’s leaving his entire right flank open, unguarded.
A few dismal facts that won’t go away:
- Malcolm’s NEG plan to reduce electricity prices aims pathetically low ($2 a week) and will fail anyway. The country already knows that.
- The world still awaits the glorious discovery of a single nation powered by lots of wind and solar that has cheap electricity.
- Australia’s 1.5% of global carbon emissions are irrelevant. Australia may be the only nation on Earth that is even trying to meet the Paris accord.
- More than half of Australians don’t buy the blame for the climate. Who speaks for them?
Today’s Sydney Morning Herald Readers Panel quiz asks if people believe the main promise behind the “Game Changer”:
Do you feel confident that the Prime Minister’s energy policy will cut electricity bills?”.
- The responses: Yes: 9%
- Don’t know: 16%
- No: 75%
So people who believe in the magical power of windmills and solar panels don’t believe his plan will work. Those who understand reality also know his plan won’t work. That leaves Turnbull reaching the 20 people in between these two groups who all appear to be columnists in the media: Paul Kelly, Paul Maley, Dennis Shanahan. Not fooled, McCrann, Bolt, Blair, and most of Australia.
Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg have made a deliberate decision to lose the next election and to lose it badly. The government woke up to the reality that a 43 per cent clean energy target would be all-but indistinguishable to Labor’s (insane) 50 per cent renewable energy target. But it then opted for something even more opaque. And, $2 a week off your power bill, in 10 years, maybe, doesn’t really seal the deal.
The Liberals instead backed Turnbull as he smashed their last hope with a plan that is boring, incomprehensible, backed by no credible modelling and – even on its own terms – will not cut power prices for a decade, and even then by just $2 a week on the average bill.
That plan will be even deader once Labor realises its best attack on this dud is simply to describe it as it actually is – just another plan to cut emissions – and then to argue it’s not as good as their own plan to do exactly the same. Already Labor is moving to this better attack.
In WA, the unskeptical pandering conservatives were crushed at the last election.
Delcons still matter — a million defiant non-left voters were “most influential group” in 2016 Australian election.
h/t David B.
See past posts:
- Delcons: Might be a million votes that don’t matter
- Turnbull killed off the best campaign issue for the Coalition — the carbon tax
We all know that if we continue this stupid push to more and more renewables without building new generation coal fired power stations to replace our aging ones that are going to be closed down soon, the cost of electricity will go up much higher than the $2 saving proposed. So where is the benefit to consumers? It’s like saying a person who has borrowed $500,000 on a reducible basis for 10 years to buy a house is told that 10% of the loan will be discounted in 9 years, but the poor old guy lost his job in 5 years and can’t pay back the loan anymore. Big deal! Australia needs lower electricity costs much sooner and not some irrelevant “discount” off a much higher level in the future. Turnbull must thing we are all a bunch of fools. He’s the fool and and so is the rest of the party if they keep him on for much longer, and the next election will prove it if he’s still the PM.
371
” Turnbull must thing we are all a bunch of fools.”
Politicians have this tendency to treat electorates as both gullible and somewhat stupid. That is a mistake because they aren’t, and believing they are has been the downfall of many a politician .
240
The Finkel report :
The big lie of the “Clean Energy Target”;
– Omission of an accurate explanation of how and why coal-fired, on-demand plants are being driven from our electricity system;
-Grossly misleading statements about relative costs of various forms of electricity generation;
-Omission of any mention of the minute effect, if any, that your proposed policy will have on temperatures for Australia and the earth as a whole;
-Omission of details of the broad social and economic impacts and different balance of payment consequences of the alternative forms of generation considered.
The word “clean” occurs about 50 times in Finkels report, particularly in conjunction with what he labeled a “Clean Energy Target”.Josef Goebbels would be proud.
It clearly implies that the alternative, in particular our fossil-fuel based legacy system, which is still the source of the vast majority of Australia’s electricity production, is dirty and thus ought to be replaced.
90
What plum sinecure will Shorten give to Turnbull after he has gifted Shorten the next election with his so-called “Energy” policy?
Head of the AEMO, so he can continue his task of economic destruction? Probably not, as Shorten will want to slow the rate of damage, to keep himself in office!
Perhaps head of the Reserve Bank, a suitable task for such a “succesful” former merchant banker?
160
Stick an electricity generating exhaust fan on top of Parliament house and we could probably power the east coast quite comfortably.
170
Imagine taking this strategy to the next election.
One political party gets out there and tells the absolute hand on heart truth that wind power and solar power do not work, that they are expensive beyond reason, that they cannot replace coal fired power, and that new coal fired power plants must be constructed to replace those now aging plants, starting immediately after the election.
They will
win the election in a landslide of a canterbe utterly decimated.They’ve got it completely face over apex. The people MUST be told what they want to hear, anything but the truth.
Just wait till they do learn the truth.
Tony.
402
Not sure that I agree with you Tony. Politicians have this tendency to treat electorates as both gullible and somewhat stupid. That is a mistake because they aren’t.
Voters tend to follow self-interest which is why the promise of something for nothing, paid for with “other peoples’ money”, has always been the policy of choice of the marxist-socialist left-wing. That works until the money runs out.
Politicians in the UK and Europe discovered to their horror that the British electorate weren’t as gullible as they had assumed and they voted for Brexit. The Remain campaign was entirely negative and filled with scare stories from the ‘great and the good’ whilst the Leave campaign was fact based and optimistic.
Despite all of that the over-riding factor in the decision was the restoration of sovereignty even if it meant slightly lower living standards.
If I were running a general election campaign in Australia it would highlight that manufacturing and jobs were leaving the country because of energy ‘policy’, that standards of living were falling and people were being forced into poverty as a direct result … and that exporting manufacturing and jobs to high CO2 emitting countries is simply a lose-lose situation that the current government have turned a blind eye to.
I would focus hard on the known failings of BOM and that the temperature record was not fit for purpose and cannot be trusted for decision or policy making. I would point out that the USA has significantly reduced CO2 emissions through natural gas (so why aren’t we??) and that Germany is now seeing rising CO2 emissions because of too high a target for renewables (focus on target being too high not anti-renewables).
Talk of the 20 year pause, the 3 years of no increase in CO2 emissions from man, and that this stability means that ever growing question marks exist about future temperature predictions and pointing out that all the predictions from models have failed.
Explain positiviely about how sensible mixed-energy policies can restore the economy whilst maintaining and enhancing the environment and halt manufacturing and jobs being exported; can end fuel poverty and the transfer of money from the poorest to the rich – and ending that will put money back in your pcoket and food on your table.
I think that a majority would understand that.
372
I wish I was as optimistic as you Roger. I was at a dinner the other night with a large group and this topic came up. I was amazed at the simplistic, mainstream media views many people had. Wind power works, more wind power is the answer because the wind is always blowing somewhere, and batteries oh lordy batteries will save the world because Musk.
This will not change until there are extended city wide blackouts
280
Agreed. Blackouts and unaffordable electricity bills will be the clinchers.
180
Agreed. People are confused. I also attended a BBQ yesterday where costs of energy was discussed. When the term “renewable” and “sustainable” come up they nod and beam appreciation. NEG, RET CET- it makes not a jot for people who just want to live their uncomplicated lives. They think.
100
That has been my experience also. Apparently, they are “too busy” to actually do any reading, and thus they get their opinions from their time in the car, listening half heartedly to the radio. Either they tune in to the ABC, as they cannot stand the ads, or, if they are younger, they have the subliminal crap from the FM stations polluting their thinking.
50
Here is the thing…..assume for a moment all 3 major parties support the exact same Communist agenda of destroying the middle class by collapsing the economy, in this case by making power so expensive it starts to destroy businesses and creates wide spread fuel poverty and unemployement.
The libs are just socialism lite, labor are socialism and the greens are hard core communism.
If labor are elected they will just accelerate the decline into full blown communism. If libs are elected the decline will occur same as labor, just slower, and the greens you might as well raise the hammer and sickle flag….
The only option is to throw out all 3, pin them to the wall with thr ballot box, then fix the mess….and then bar them from holding office unless they radically change their platform.
Its a bit like hitting a cancer with high doses of radiation….
220
You’re proceeding from an incorrect premise – namely, that these people have deeply-held convictions about which system is ‘best for society’. They don’t.
They’re just grifters, and as the old saying goes: if you don’t know who the mark is, you’re the mark.
Politicians aren’t interested in any “-ism”, except parasitism. They are usually second-quintile students, so they have an extraordinarily thin grasp of the theory underlying competing political systems. They wear their ‘-ism’ the same way American politicians wear a flag pin.
A more useful conceptual framework is to quietly mutter a single word under your breath, every time a politician claims that such-and-so a policy is part of a coherent policy platform that will yield long-term benefits for Australia.
That single word is the main noun in the title of an 80-page essay by Princeton’s Emeritus Professor of Philosophy – Harry Frankfurter. The book was a #1 NY Times bestseller; the word in the title is a prominent element of the Amazon page for the book, and as such has no place being filtered as ‘obscene’ except in a world run by Mrs Jessup from the Sullivans so I won’t try to ‘shoehorn’ it in by using accented vowels.
So anyhow… take a deep breath in, and just quietly intone… “Bullshit“.
10
If the government goes to the next election without much change in direction and no change in leader then there can only be two reasons for this:
1. The whole party is so stupid they deserve to lose the next election by a landslide, and stay out of office for several election cycles. Yes I know the ALP will destroy the country – but so what? Isn’t the LNP doing it anyway? We might as well have one that does the job properly.
2. Turnbull and some of his close supporters are deliberately out to destroy the country for whatever ulterior and sinister motive.
I’m not sure which is the right one. I’d seriously give them roughly equal weight at the moment.
211
PeterS:
Don’t underrate their arrogance, incompetence and gullibility.
130
I do sincerely hope that is the case, namely option 1. Otherwise if option 2 were the case this country is in real danger and our very lives not just our freedoms are hanging in the balance.
40
The tragedy, in my opinion, is that Daniel Andrews chose to take on the CFA when he did. If he hadn’t, we would be halfway through a one term Shorten Government, with a recalcitrant Senate. Turnbull would be a fading memory, the LNP would have had to take a good, hard look at themselves, Tony Abbott would be shredding BS in the Parliament and Josh Frydenburg wouldn’t be anywhere near a portfolio that encompassed energy or “climate”. A ritual cleansing would have occurred, and some decent new blood, hopefully without any ties to the NSW machine fools such as Photios and Zimmerman.
We survived Rudd and Gillard, although we are clearly still paying for that little social experiment. We would survive a one term Shorten Government if we had a viable and organised opposition. As it is right now, I believe we are doomed, and not just on energy and “climate”. We are now doomed socially as well.
Turnbull is a Sachs of Gold Man cuckoo in the LNP’s nest. The damage is done. He ratified the Paris nonsense, was it one day (?), after Trump said he wouldn’t. I wish this country would introduce some serious RICO laws. I also fully understand why we won’t.
30
That is the scary part! Because it is proving that the politicians are great BS’s while the general public is basically stupid. The politicians do know that renewable energy does not work, yet they sale to the public, who in turn buy’s it! Sheesh!
140
Until sceptics/realists come up with a real alternative to the leftist mainstream media, to put our argument to the generally dumbed down voting populace in easy to understand, bite size articles, then the alarmist Greens and opportunist carpetbaggers will always carry the gullible majority along with them. Unfortunately, as worthy as blogs such as Jo’s here are, they simply don’t cut it, as they are virtually unknown outside of climate sceptic circles, and at any rate the articles are not structured to appeal to the aforementioned dumbed down plebs short attention span. I’ve copy and pasted various articles and comments from this blog to social media, and in most cases have heavily edited them with simple language for ease of understanding. Not certain that my efforts are not in vain though as I get few responses.
50
Tony, you mean that electricity prices doubling over the next few years, with blackouts, loss of industry, jobs, and the grid, followed by a $2 per week cut in the doubled or more electricity prices won’t make everyone happy?
Sounds like a great plan, something my bank has been offering me for nearly a decade; Give my money to the bank, they will pay me .01% interest and then lend me back my money at a 5-6% rate for home and auto loans and a 22-25% percent interest rate on credit cards.
Such a deal!
40
From the government’s perspective, probably too late in the game to change the climate alarmist narrative and go back to square one, even if it wanted to do so.
It is determined to crash through – or crash – with spin and PM’s “guarantee” semantics.
We have to remember the dilemma the political class created for itself when it legislated the RET of 23% by 2020, revising a figure pulled out of the air by Gillard and Bob Brown.
https://theconversation.com/obituary-australias-carbon-price-29217
The Carbon Pricing Mechanism is survived by several relatives, including the Climate Change Authority, Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Renewable Energy Target, albeit all in precarious health. It was preceded in death by its mother, the Department of Climate Change, and its brother, the Climate Commission.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-government-and-labor-reach-renewable-energy-target-deal-20150518-gh4161.html
As you can see, there is now a huge green national/state bureaucracy with a vested – and bi-partisan – interest in giving credibility to – not the truth – but the current RET:
http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/renewable-energy-target-scheme
To move the goalposts NOW would almost certainly crystallise legal action against it – for financial loss etc – by companies that have proceeded to build RE facilities and so on under the rules.
Furthermore, the government is doubly exposed because it has used our money – via ARENA and the CEFC – to invest in (subsidise) RE projects to ensure there is sufficient RE in system to allow companies to meet their 2020 consumption legal obligations.
Such issues would be top-of-mind on Capitol Hill right now, not carbon dioxide and climate change.
In other words, they have locked themselves into a mad scheme via legislation.
To go back to square one – and declare “mea culpa” – so late in the day would be political suicide.
Tony Abbott was right. But WE are the GOATS now being sacrificed to Gaia.
60
Energy policy ??? one that will inevitably increase domestic power bills and drive even more
businesses overseas to places which have much lower energy overheads.This is already happening.Australia now has no camparative advantage in energy costs as it once did. As
lower growth is beginning to emerge in the economy then recession will follow and with that
increasing rates of unemployment.Teetering households with borderline budgets due to
massive mortgages will start to default.All these signs are there.We as a country now really have
no energy security we can’t even refine crude oil.This talk that Turnbull goes on about is
like “moving deck chairs on the Titanic” or “fiddling as Rome burns” well I ever thought
Australia would come to this
270
.
It’s getting colder, wetter etc
Yet these fools are taxing CO2 because Al Gore, Tim Flannery & David Suzuki say it makes the world hotter!
Australia is heading to Oblivion!
Shorten, Turnbull and Denutjob? What a choice of leaders today?
Note to self.
Order Generator today!
272
Mine has been in the shed for 2.5 years.
80
Uograded mine mid year and will be rearranging the house wiring next month to provide a simple changeover
80
$2 a week savings next decade makes no cents.
150
That’s like building”Nuclear Subs”and changing them to diesel,to be ready in 50 years time.
30
To save one MP’s seat, don’t forget.
20
I think one of the key points missed but the public, based on conversations I’ve had with a few people, is the deferred nature of the “savings”.
So that explains most of the 25% who are either confused or delusional…..
120
Even Craig Kelly is sticking to the script on this one , the nats are doing what they’re told to their detriment.
It’s time the ones who aren’t sheep to abandon ship and set sail for Cory Bernardi .
150
For those who believed the spin that rich Turnbull was clever, this latest crazy idea should prove it is not true. Another Rudd. Incredibly rich, convinced of his own ability and really having trouble trying to come up with any ideas of his own. Determined to have a Carbon tax, what he calls ’emissions’.
Add this to his VFT, Snowy II, new airport for Sydney, NBN fixes and his hurry to sign up to Paris while using up all our goodwill with Trump to dump illegal unwanted people on the US. Remember when Gillard wanted to swap refugees for even more Malaysian refugees? Until the High Court ruled it illegal.
Bad laws to cover up worse laws. We do not need all these laws. Especially laws which steal money from people by hiding massive charges in our electricity bills to go only to people the government nominate. No government has this right. Taxation is legal but forcing us to pay other people for things we already own, coal, gas, oil is legislated theft and against every concept of Westminster democracy. No government has this right, but it is never mentioned, never discussed.
Now the very closure of coal and gas power is going to be slowed by more compulsion, more charges. This time electricity retailers are being forced to buy more expensive power they do not want to buy thanks to the RET. How on earth is this supposed to make things cheaper? They will just pass on the additional cost. No, Turnbull is starting to make Rudd look clever.
Get rid of the RET. Get out of power. Stop all the SA windmill building with our money, stolen under wrong legislation from our electricity. All so they can say there is no carbon TAX. Now we have legislated theft. $3Bn a year is just what goes overseas. Another $3Bn goes into pockets in Australia. It is robbery. Turnbull apparently has no idea this is going on, no idea why we cannot afford our own electricity, no idea why the lights are going out. Really? No one believes him.
Dump the RET. Bills will halve immediately. People will reinvest in coal. Why are we not allowed us our own coal? Abbott is asking the obvious questions. Plus Canavan and Bernadi and most of the country.
The two questions are, how long before Malcolm’s Liberals explode and will he get his $1.75Million back? If the Liberal party owes a debt of $1.75Million to the Prime Minister, was it declared to the AEC? Is it legal?
241
G’day TdeF,
My idea for some pictures
“An idea”
Over recent months both you and TonyfromOz have been active in giving their ideas, with which I agree, and David Maddison suggested we do more to get them out and more widely known. And I agree with that also.
:::
So I decided to try and develop a picture to pull it all together(!!). That didn’t work. All I could produce was an unintelligible mess. Then I tried two pictures and found I really need three. But then I came across realism – my artistic skills are not up the job, and nor is my knowledge at the level of reliable detail – to the extent that I will not be able to complete this alone.
I’m hoping you, or some other Jo follower can flesh these out into something compelling that might wake up the necessary decision makers.
* * *
My pictures:
1. Electricity flow, coalfired at the top, going to the grid and on to customers.
Renewables at the bottom going, via a synchronisation box, also to the grid.
Flows indicated by arrows with width proportional to the % supplied, solid if reliable, dotted otherwise.
Use base load numbers.
2. Money flow, customers to distributers
Distributers to suppliers, coal at the bottom, rest to the right
Coal plants to suppliers(??) for those certificates
Off to the side: Govt gives regulations, to solar and wind
Solar and wind create certificates, maybe with magic wand and black hat?
3. An enlargement of the “Distributer” box in 2, showing:
Money in from customers
Money out to suppliers for elec
Money out to solar/wind owners for certificates
(Much more) money to Govt for certificates to cover shortfall – (this added 14/8/17)
Money to Govt for GST – (this added 1/10/17)
Internal calcs to get price to customers:
Power price
Certificate price
Profit/markup
GST – (added 14/8/17)
Price to customers via a bill
:::
Here endeth the idea. Would like to think you could use it. If so, do so as you see fit. No restrictions.
Cheers,
Dave B
10
TdeF:
The major problem with the Turnbull plan is that it will NOT work.
The Greens are fond of claiming that wind is now cheaper than coal fired, but that is because they are mistaking the wholesale selling cost rather than the capital inclusive price (or the cost after subsidies).
They are also assuming that the costs of backup will be charged to the conventional generation. This backup has to be fast acting to accommodate changes in wind speed, and in Europe is largely met by hydroelectricity. In Australia, despite the enthusiasm of non-engineers for pumped storage from Ship Creek to Woop Woop the only real existing method is Open Cycle Gas Turbines or Diesel generators. The latter are more costly and possibly emit more CO2.(Note 1)
Assuming that the costs given by Finkel are correct (Note 2)
Consider the following 3 scenarios:
a) All HELE coal or All CCGT
Result power at $76 [gas $96] , stable supply, no blackouts. (Note 3)
Emissions 700 (800 for brown coal, CCGT 370). Reduction 27%, 17% and 61% From current figure for whole system.
b) 32% wind plus CCGTs
Results in an unstable system. To get 32% supply from wind would require installation of 107% of required capacity. Fortunately the times when all turbines supply at the full rate will be limited to a few days a year. Unfortunately the supply is likely to exceed 30% of demand for many days a year, possibly just short of 100. On the other hand there will be days when 100% of the generation has to be gas fired. (Note 4)
So the Gas Turbines will be running below 70% of capacity which means lower efficiency and higher CO2 emissions. The downtime for maintenance due to stress cracking etc. will raise costs, and mean that extra CCGT capacity would be needed “just in case”.
The chances of blackouts are more but can be covered by fast acting OCGTs and hydro.
Result: power at 117.2,
emissions at 302. (down 18% for 32% wind, better than found in practice in he Republic of Ireland)
c) 32% wind and OCGTs as backup. System not always stable but better than No.2
As OCGTs are not operated by for more than 30% of the time because of thermal stresses and more maintenance this would require approx. 320% of maximum capacity to cover any outages but only 100% cover Maximum for a few days a year. Allowing 70% OCGTs and 32% wind we get a cost of 117 and emissions 434 (Note 5)
So there is little difference in cost with whichever gas type is used but adding wind drives up the costs, even without subsidies under the RET. And emissions reductions are better with stable systems. The problems will come because of the widespread but untrue belief that wind is cheap and turbines reduce emission 1:1. Anybody looking at Germany where wind turbines have been installed by the thousands with ANY reduction in CO2 emissions from electricity generation in the last 7 years must wonder how this last idea can be believed.
Note 1: possible exception is the latest dual fuel (diesel startup, gas running) types.
Note 2: Has anyone checked these, esp. the relative lives of coal fired v wind turbines? His projections for solar thermal are unbelievable.
Note 3: Obviously slightly wrong in so as there would have to be some hydro and fast acting backup e.g OCGTs.
Note 4: These are intentionally simplified systems so don’t nitpick.
Note 5: Actual cost will be higher as I mistakenly used the capital cost for only 70% of the OCGTs before cut and paste. Feel free to recalculate.
10
Gn3, regardless of your thoughts on pumped hydro…I would rather ALL the unreliable wind/solar power was directed into inefficient (30% more energy required to pump than generated through hydro) than stuff up baseload. And yes, wind/solar wouldn’t even be able to pump water uphill! It is useless!
10
Let’s just look at the other states , I have no idea who the leader of the opposition is in Victoriastan but never heard any gripes or opposing views to our Glorious leaders 43% renewables announcement last week .
South Australia again a non existent opposition, although Xenophobe has them worried is he any better ?
Queensland has the palacechook who announces what the union wants her to , and that state has big plans for renewables ,50% .
ACT has been a basket case Labor/Green love in for years .
NSW is also moving to the left .
Best we can hope for is the new breed of left leaning not thinking despots give us the blackouts we have to have , only then will there be change for the better and hopefully stocks in the main square of every town along with plenty of rotten tomatoes, tar and feathers .
Yes folks this train has to crash before it can be put back on the track .
202
Ah yes!
“The black-out we had to have”.
Go long bananas.
30
Op Leader in Vic is some Guy. Likes having dinner with mates, apparently. He is of absolutely no use. I was saddened to hear that Jeff Kennet was once again President of the Hawthorn Football club. His talents are needed elsewhere. However, I cannot imagine any inducement that would get him to stand again. I cannot see any politician of any sort of calibre anywhere in the political sphere anywhere in this country, Abbott excepted. And, given what has just happened in New Zealand, I wonder if I ever will. Why on Earth would you bother, when some self serving moron like Peters can play king maker. He makes Windsor/Oakshott look like intellectual giants. What the hell is going on?
10
Turnbull’s “game changer” ???????????????
Turnbull’s game plan is “hari kari!!!”.
ALP to win the 2019 Federal Election – odds on now.
And watch Oz’s fortunes disintegrate under “3 yrs of ALP Rule” post 2019.
Oz will learn the hard way especially while they watch Trump’s USA Economy go gangbusters thanks to cheap electricity (less than half the price of Oz), lower taxes, lower unemployment (sunny California excepted) etc etc. It is only then that the apathetic Oz electorate will realize that there is a better way – yes “Trumpeconomics”, ie the cheapest form of electricity (fossil fuels & nuclear) & lower taxes & no big handouts to the “Socialist UN”. Put simply “leftie policies like Turnbull & the ALP” are currently & will continue to destroy the Oz Economy and bring misery to many of Oz’s 24 my citizens. This madness has to stop!!!!
171
[…] plays with the temperature records. I wonder why? Jo Nova on Malcolm Turnbull’s “game changer“. Strangely […]
31
I just wonder if anyone in parliament has actually read the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2001 and its changes under two governments? It is hard to understand why anyone would want any more than this, especially with Malcolm’s endless desire for an ETS? The so called RET is all that and more. Certificates. Hidden. No mention of carbon.
Is the act so clever that no one actually understands it? Or is the whole country being gamed by the Greens and their friends. Without even mentioning CARBON or TAX, it is the highest price on carbon in the world, $200 a tonne for coal and $400 a ton for gas. Certificates large and small. Government administered trading with fines. Billions for windmills and solar and home solar, 15 years carbon tax IN ADVANCE. This Act has it all but at least the Liberal party can stand, hands on hearts and say “We do not have a Carbon Tax”. We repealed that.
Sure, but this is the Liberal Party Carbon Tax, the largest in the world and to listen to Malcolm, you would think it does not exist. Even Abbott is talking about easing it back over five years. Sovereign risk. Lack of investor confidence.
No. Kill the evil thing. Billions for nothing must stop. If someone, some company is dependent on this huge ripoff for the right to burn coal or gas, too bad. They know it is wrong.
A bit like Turnbull’s giant battery, billions to build, five to ten years and it does nothing but store windmill power? We even pay to pump water uphill and then pay when it comes down again? This cannot make money or sense.
Please, will someone in parliament please look at the Act? Or is it so cunningly framed that no one really understands it? Is Malcolm being facetious when he says the problem is very complex and he is studying it closely, or is this all a ruse?
This time, if people want us all to build winmills, can they please pay for it out of the government budget? Just like all the other power stations. Then at least we can measure what we pay and what we get. Or is it just another giant NBN? No one knows what it is or what we are getting or how much it will cost or why we are building it in the first place. Possibly.
And if giant batteries were needed, why was this not obvious in the first place. No, the government should not get involved in things they do not understand. Plus the Chief Scientist is advising on economics and politics. No wonder the place is a mess.
I can only hope Abbott can sort it out. Quickly. Kill the RET. Turn on Hazelwood, or buy it for the cost of the landscaping. Liddell too.
220
If Turnbull wishes to don a hemp collar voluntarily and invite his back bench to open the trapdoor, then help the man.
50
It seems the Terry McCrann, whom Jo is quoting above, has the right of it:
How many months have they left?
One? Two? Or Three?
Will they survive until the end of this year?
When does Parliament convene in the New Year?
Will they survive after that?
Dead men walking …
60
O/T but so apropos to the recent postings, particularly The Problems with and of The BOM.
I have followed the BOM saga through this and Jen Marohasy’s blogs, so I was delighted to read Duncan Smith’s guest contribution to WUWT.
Smith’s list of Ten Psychological Tactics for Avoiding Climate Science Accountability at WUWT, is reading fit to join some of Spike Milligan’s great satire. It fits the Departmental behaviour, maneuvering, evasiveness, and excuses perfectly. It’s such a good fit that I’m wondering if Smith is quoting from some Civil Servants Management Guide or Code of Conduct. 🙂
To a lesser degree, it applies to the Federal Government as well.
Enjoy! I did.
41
Very interesting read. Also, within the comments is a link to George Carlin on ‘Words and Politicians’…it’s brilliant.
10
20 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Karl Mathiesen: Jacinda Ardern commits New Zealand to zero carbon by 2050
She laid out three policy areas that she said Labour had carried through the coalition negotiations with NZ First leader Winston Peters.
“That will include a zero carbon act. That will include an independent climate commission. That will include making sure that we have an all gases, all sectors emissions trading scheme,” said Ardern.
The Green party, who will support the coalition in parliament with a confidence and supply agreement, already back the proposed 2050 net zero emissions target.
NZ First did not carry the target as a policy into the election, but earlier this year during a parliamentary debate MP Denis O’Rourke said “I believe that’s the target we should set”. O’Rourke, however, was not reelected at the 23 September election.
“All three parties share an absolute commitment to addressing climate change,” said Ardern…
The 2050 target would put New Zealand in the vanguard of climate action. Sweden aims for net zero emissions by 2045. Norway has bid to be carbon neutral by 2030. Both nations will rely on offsetting residual emissions by buying international carbon credits and planting trees…
To achieve the cuts, the New Zealand coalition partners both back the establishment of a UK-style carbon budget system overseen by an independent commission. Earlier this year, John Gummer, chair of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change, visited New Zealand. NZ First press releases (LINK) suggest he made a deep impression.
Labour will also seek to reform the country’s emissions trading scheme to include agriculture – a move opposed by farmers…
New Zealand’s forestry sector has long been a source of concern for campaigners, who say the government is using creative accounting of its plantations to erase carbon pollution from its national total. It is unclear whether Labour intends to reform this sector…
Greenpeace New Zealand told Climate Home News in a tweet the announcements were “a great start. But we want to see Jacinda Ardern and @nzlabour put an end to deep sea oil exploration”. New Zealand exports $1.05bn worth of oil and gas each year. Norway also has a big hydrocarbon industry, the pollution from which it does not count as its own…
Unlike in their larger cross-Tasman neighbour, Australia, politicians in New Zealand are broadly aligned on treating climate change as a priority. During a debate on the issue in September, all parties except National rated it as a 10 out of 10 on importance. The National said it was an 8.5.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/10/20/jacinda-ardern-commits-new-zealand-zero-carbon-2050/
90
Very enlightening piece Pat , I think our pollies are pretty much the same at the moment .
Only really one has called the scam for what it is and stuck to it .
70
No wonder Labor ended up in charge .
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-21/jacinda-ardern-what-can-expect-from-new-zealand-new-government/9073120
40
An almost unbelievable situation. The politicians treat Climate Change as the highest priority? What Climate Change? What science?
It’s not as if I am a skeptic. I have yet to read anything which actually was a logical explanation beyond the roughest wild conjecture and still have total disbelief that anyone accepts this as real let alone serious? What Climate Change has New Zealand experienced? Or Australia?
We had 350 full time CSIRO scientists working to prove Climate Change existed. They failed. Their new boss said it had been proven overseas and that was good enough so they are redirected onto fixing the problems caused by this thing they could not find. This is comic tragic, not science.
If our political classes actually believe this stuff, I would be surprised. Still I am prepared to believe that having so many innumerate and science ignorant lawyers in parliament, it might just be true and the Chief Scientist wants to play politics. What hope does the country have?
161
19 Oct: The Hill: Trump’s pick for environmental job once called belief in global warming ‘paganism’
by Avery Anapol
President Trump’s pick for a top environmental post once referred to belief in global warming as ”paganism” for “secular elites.”
Kathleen Hartnett White, whom Trump nominated last week to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made the comment during a 2016 appearance on the online conservative talk show “The Right Perspective,” CNN reported Thursday.
Hartnett White referred to environmental leaders using climate policy “to undermine the system of economic growth and industrialization.”
“There’s a real dark side of the kind of paganism — the secular elites’ religion now being, evidently, global warming,” Hartnett White said on the show.
The Trump nominee has a history of criticizing climate change policy and has refuted evidence that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, saying it “makes life possible on the earth and naturally fertilizes plant growth.”
“Global warming alarmists are misleading the public about carbon dioxide emissions,” she said.
Hartnett White also slammed President Obama’s environmental initiatives, calling them a “deluded and illegitimate battle against climate change” in an op-ed for The Hill last year.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/356281-trumps-pick-for-environmental-official-once-called-belief-in-global
20 Oct: Daily Mail: Sold! Ellen DeGeneres snaps up a stylish beachfront property on the Californian coast, complete with its own guest house, tennis court and plunge pool, for $18.6 million
The stylish beachfront property ***sits right on the sand and has four bedrooms and four-and-a-half bathrooms with floor to ceiling windows providing breathtaking ocean views.
Leonardo DiCaprio Surprises ‘Ellen’ (DeGeneres) Audience to Talk Climate Change
Hollywood Reporter-4 Nov. 2016
Ellen DeGeneres urges Australians to help save Great Barrier Reef
Guardian 2016
Al Gore on Ellen DeGeneres show talks about Chemtrails & Climate Change
Youtube 2016
Ellen DeGeneres Tweet: 2012: My friend @AlGore knows a thing or two about climate change. Find out about his new project & our @ClimateReality here http://say.ly/tGc4AjB
https://twitter.com/theellenshow/status/268884841309818880
100
Malcolm used to dream agile mini-cities with solar powered hyperloops and the latest GE lightbulbs burgeoning under a New Federalism and defended by stealthy Franco-Adelaidean oiler submarines (later in the century).
Now he just offers the price of small packet of Smarties while we all wait for a Labor government.
His old boosters in Corporatedom and Luvviedom and the ABC can’t revive this globalist corpse. Only the weekday tennis ladies of Wentworth still think there’s a pulse.
God, what have we elected? And what are we going elect?
150
not a State-approved media outlet, see second link:
19 Oct: TheZimbabwean: Africa, US question World Bank policy on poor
Tensions came to the fore last week when the World Bank held its annual meeting in Washington. Zimbabwe, Nigeria and India all have doubts about a policy they say does little to lift people out of poverty. Their unlikely ally is Donald Trump.
By own Correspondent
WASHINGTON DC – More than half-a-century after it was opened by the Queen Mother in 1960, Kariba is still the world’s biggest dam by volume.
Straddling the Zambezi, it stretches back 220 kilometres from the wall, with a catchment area the size of France.
But if Kariba was built today, the World Bank wouldn’t fund it. Same with the Three Gorges Dam in China, oil wells in Saudi or the coal-fired power stations that account for 60 per cent of Africa’s kilowatts.
At the bank’s annual summit last week, hosted by its president Dr Jim Yong Kim, these policies loomed into focus as more than 11,500 delegates, including six from Zimbabwe, converged on Washington.
Where else might you find Donald Trump and Robert Mugabe on the same side, along with India, China, Australia, Ghana, Nigeria and a clutch of others calling for change?
Conventional energy has fallen out of vogue and some say the bank has been hijacked by an army of lobbyists who want to shut down anything not powered by wind or sunshine…
Mr Trump, who has suspended his country from both the Paris climate accord and, last week, UNESCO, is a long-time critic of the bank and the billions it spends. He wants projects to be measured and costed like a private company, with the board held accountable when things go wrong…
Trump didn’t even bother to voice his verdict. Instead his finance minister, Steve Mnuchin issued a written statement saying there’d be no rise in the US contribution because, ”existing capital is not allocated effectively”.
The ledger, he said, needed to be trimmed with less going to rich countries. Trump has criticised loans to China saying the focus should be on the poor.
And, while reviewing that, said Mr Mnuchin, they should cut “the Executive Board budget” of salaries, expenses and pensions for the army of bureaucrats who run the bank.
There was worse to come. Halfway through the summit, a London think-tank published a report in which the bank’s former head of research suggested the entire institution be shut down.
The document, distributed at the meeting, was produced by the Global Warming Policy Forum with examples of how, in their view, the poor are losing out…
Indian government minister Piyush Goyal, for example, could have been speaking for Zimbabwe or any developing country when he said, ‘The people of India want a certain way of life. They want jobs for their children, schools and colleges, hospitals with uninterrupted power.”
Solar, he complained, only worked when the sun is shining.
“We need a very large amount of baseload power and this can only come from coal.
‘They’re saying to us, we’re sorry but you Indians can only have power for eight hours a day. The rest of the time you must live in darkness’…
But the frustration of many in Africa might be summed up by Nigerian finance minister, Kemi Adeosun.
“We want to build a coal power plant,” Mrs Adeosun said.
“However, we are being blocked from doing so, because it is not green.”
“This is not fair because they have an entire western industrialisation that was built on coal-fired energy,” she said.
“This is the competitive advantage that was used to develop Europe, yet now that Nigeria wants to do it, they say it’s not green, so we cannot. They suggest that we use solar and wind, which is more expensive.”…
Dr Kim predicted that, by 2020, more than a quarter of his budget will be linked to climate change.
For those protesting around the summit this was good news. There were demos on everything from tribes in the Amazon being moved by loggers, to gay rights in Egypt; those on energy sang the praise of wind and solar.
But they were mostly run by people from Europe and North America where the lights stay on…
Ironically, at one point the World Bank conference had a black-out. The lights flickered, went off to a collective gasp, and came on again.
Charles Boamah from the African Development Bank who was speaking at the time broke into laughter.
“Well you know there are 600 million in Africa who don’t have access to electricity,” he said.
“Maybe they’re trying to tell us something.”
http://www.thezimbabwean.co/2017/10/africa-us-question-world-bank-policy-poor/
The Zimbabwean: A Voice for the Voiceless
Since it was established in 2005 The Zimbabwean (TZ) has been a torch-bearer in the face of overwhelming state propaganda and a news blackout on state-sponsored terrorism, corruption and human rights abuses.
The Zimbabwean is recognised worldwide as an authoritative and accurate publication of record and a reliable source of information, and for its invaluable contribution to press freedom and democracy, and exposure of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. From February 2005 until October 2015 the hard copy was distributed free of charge to disadvantaged rural communities, comprising mainly women and youths, inside Zimbabwe, while all content was also available on line. In line with modern trends, the newspaper has become an online publication.
According to The Zimbabwe All Media and Products Survey, thezimbabwean.co is the most popular website of all weekly newspapers in Zimbabwe…
http://www.thezimbabwean.co/about-us/
50
There you have it. Australia is in the same boat – new coal fired power stations are being blocked here too. That effectively makes us a third world country.
170
Blackouts coming soon as well.
80
How is it that Mrs Adeosun can cut through the nonsense pedalled by the investment world like this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-16/investing-trillions-in-electricity-s-sunny-future
To make the simple conclusion:
How is it that a minister in the Nigerian government gets this but the majority of the dimwits in the Australian government are taken in by the Bloomberg nonsense.
30
19 Oct: GWPF: James Delingpole: How The World Bank Keeps Poor Nations Poor
Its policy of eco-imperialism forces renewables on a reluctant but largely helpless developing world
Here is Nigeria’s Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun: ‘We want to build a coal power plant because we are a country blessed with coal, yet we have a power problem. So it doesn’t take a genius to work out that it will make sense to build a coal power plant. However, we are being blocked because it is not green. This is not fair, because they have an entire western industrialisation that was built on coal-fired energy.”AdTech Ad
She’s dead right it’s not fair. The UN is forever banging on about global injustice and admits that wealth redistribution is among its sustainable development goals. Yet at the same time, its policy of eco-imperialism forces renewables on a reluctant but largely helpless developing world — the surest way of guaranteeing that the world’s poorest nations stay that way…READ ALL
https://www.thegwpf.com/james-delingpole-how-the-world-bank-keeps-poor-nations-poor/
61
should have noted James Delingpole’s article is from the UK Spectator.
13 Oct: GWPF: New Report: World Bank “Abandons The Poor”
A new report: The Anti-Development Bank: The World Bank’s Regressive Energy Policies by the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) finds that the World Bank has abdicated its primary mission of tackling poverty in the developing world.
The report, written by author and former Treasury adviser Rupert Darwall, with a foreword by the distinguished economist and former World Bank research administrator, Professor Deepak Lal, comes as ministers travel to Washington, DC to attend the annual World Bank meeting.
The report finds that the bank’s energy policies are hurting development and making poor countries poorer.
By embracing high-cost, low-reliability renewables and restricting clean coal financing, the World Bank is guilty of “an inhumane and senseless attempt to try and save the planet on the backs of the world’s poor,” Darwall says.
In line with the demands made by developing countries, he argues that the World Bank should lift its 2013 ban on financing coal-fired power stations and help the world’s poorest by supporting the next generation of low-emission power stations.
He calls on the World Bank to abandon what he says is “its damaging advocacy of renewable energy for countries that can ill afford the costs and risk of flawed technologies that rich countries have yet to solve”…
DOWNLOAD REPORT
https://www.thegwpf.com/new-report-world-bank-abandons-the-poor/
80
To be honest the more I think about it the more outrageous Turnbull’s idea is. Not only is it too far into the future even to worry about given there is so much pain already, it’s not going to happen anyway as they will lose the next election for sure. They might as well say it will be $20 a week reduction. No one is listening.
150
I all this I am reminded that King Canute had the same problem.. “In the story, Canute demonstrates to his flattering courtiers that he has no control over the elements (the incoming tide), explaining that secular power is vain compared to the supreme power of God. ”
In our case politicians need to think about what Canute was trying to teach. Mankind has no control over CO2 levels. It is a gaseous equilibrium between the huge ocean and the thin air above operating under Henry’s law. CO2 is proportional to temperature and consider that 50x as much CO2 is dissolved in the ocean. A small change in temperature means a big change in CO2, but a thousand years after Canute the myth is that governments control CO2.
We have not advanced at all above this druidic, animist religion, with billions of dollars in votive offerings and the building of thousands of giant windmill Gods. Earth, Wind and Fire. Druidic religion, not science. Soon our politicians will wear white hoods.
161
In politics we have quite a few King Canute’s , only the spelling is a bit different?
20
Cnuts?
00
Fairly simple math: Get the “more than half of Australians don’t buy the blame for the climate” to get out and vote.
What happened in America with Trump is simple: after years (decades?) of elite abuse, the majority in most States actually got out and voted. Trump was (maybe is) just a figurehead. The “movement” is very real. You need to do the same in Australia instead of waiting years for the lethargy to wear off.
92
It is a little more complex. Trump went for a working class vote; Hillary went for a welfare class vote. They both succeeded, but Trump’s strategy was to go for votes where it mattered – the swing states.
2012: Obama 66M votes, 332 electoral votes. Romney 61M, 206 electoral.
2016: Clinton 66M votes, 227 electoral votes. Trump 63M, 304 electoral.
70
George if you take California out of that equation the numbers change dramatically!
I personally don’t believe there are enough of us to make a difference in any election outcome except maybe Queensland.
This country will have to be ruined and in total blackout before the believers become deplorables.
51
Cedarhill, everyone votes in Australia. You need to influence the actual voting choice not attendance.
70
Yes, but what choice do we have? Green Turnbull Party or Green Labor. We are doomed whoever wins.
31
Oh my, that explains a lot. Are over half the folks on the dole? I mean if a voter is mandated to pay for their power and food and shelter and transportation are they so dense as to not understand how their vote effects their wallet?
00
*&*&&**%%$$*&&###@@. Grr! $2 a week won’t even buy me a month of Netflix at $11.99/month and that’s the cheapest thing I buy every month. That probably stays true if I were to bother to take the exchange rate into account. I’m sure that’s what you would say too.
Who do they think will be fooled into believing this will be a worthwhile effort?
Never mind. As unhappy as the situation is, it’s government… 🙁
71
You are right, it is the government doing what it does best: over promising and under delivering at a much increased cost. It is always what governments have done and they see no reason to change behavior.
Never fear, the $2 a week reduction will soon vanish and turn into multiples of increased costs. However, they will give you hundreds of reasons why the savings vanished and the costs were compounded. Obviously, none of which were the fault of the government.
Don’t you know you aren’t supposed to notice the difference between what they promise and what they deliver? After all, you have the holidays and new year celebration to help you forget. The frequent blackouts and high electricity bills might worry you a bit later on. Hopefully after the next election.
70
At this stage the main game is keeping the lights on. Cost savings if any are icing on the cake.
40
We need to do a better job of ridiculing a 50% renewable energy target.
It sounds so reasonable – 50/50 renewables/coal – what could possibly be wrong with that?
Because renewables/intermittents only have a 30% capacity factor, to supply 50% of demand on average their installed capacity must be equal to 160% of average demand. So every coal/gas station would be idling when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing – what a waste.
Now let’s consider what happens at 6 pm, with no sun and little wind. Peak demand must be met with 100% coal/gas, unless enormous batteries or pumped hydro are available that have not yet been costed into our electricity bills.
So to meet a 50% renewables target, we can’t shut down any existing coal/gas generators and we must overbuild wind/solar up to 160% of demand. Now tell me how much more costly that scenario must be.
120
All they need to say is batteries, then SQUIRELL!!! and the argument is lost. The general population is pretty stupid (despite some generous comments about them by others upthread) The argument is technical for most people once once the kW, kWh, MW, MWh, nameplate vs actual blah blah starts their eyes glaze over.
90
Australia no longer has any competitive economic advantages.
92
We need to get out of weather-dependent power production. There is a good reason it was abandoned around 200 years ago as soon as a reliable steam engine was developed. A reason the Left have a war against the teaching of history is so that such lessons of the past are forgotten.
132
In some ways Turnbull is like an addict who can’t quite give up the habit. So I’ll get rid of the CET, I’ll get rid of subsidies but I’ll keep trying to reduce emissions. Like a gambler or smoker unless one gives up on everything you can’t be cured , the urges return. ill just have one cigaret a day, one bet a day , one beer a day, it doesn’t work. Turnbull can’t get rid of his established beliefs and thinks on this subject there is a middle road where everyone is happy. i don’t think the Libs can solve this issue without a change of leader who is a sceptic who appoints people to influential positions who are sceptics like Trump has.
120
Turnbull’s mother was Labor Royalty, with people like Neville Wran visiting regularly. Malcolm’s Great uncle was head of the UK Labor party, anti war, an enemy of Churchill and utterly against rearmament in the 1930s. He visited Hitler and pronounced him a humble Christian with no ambition. Malcolm has inherited his judgement. Turnbull’s money was inherited from his real estate developer father as an only child after the father’s early death in a plane accident. Turnbull was too rich for Labor, unlike Rudd. So he turned to the Liberals who treated him like the Messiah.
So we have these two rich dilettantes, Rudd and Turnbull. Legends in their own lunchtimes. As Peta Credlin writes today in the Herald Sun, Turnbull has just handed a certain victory to Labor.
Worse, they can now genuinely blame the whole mess on the Liberals and their incompetence. What Turnbull and his Black Hand friends has done to the triumphant Liberals under Abbott is a Labor dream. Now we wait on the ejection of Barnaby, the willing partner to Turnbull. As Pyne now says, he always voted for Turnbull, clearly despite being a minister in an Abbott government. Treachery throughout Abbott’s ministry.
What we have and have always had under Turnbull’s Green Liberals was a pretend conservative government. They are more Labor than Labor, more Green than the Greens and as they retire on their fabulous indexed pensions, they have ensured a new Labor future for a generation. Who cares if the power goes off? It was the price of Labor power.
141
The same story here:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/turnbulls-energy-policy-an-election-death-warrant/news-story/8c0579b3376747d5a4a49088cb6ee4cc
Credlin makes a valid point with regard to acceptance:
I do not know if federal legislation is needed for the “plan” to go through or just agreement with the states.
There is some myth out there that the more money thrown at the power supply the lower the costs will be. This defies any notion of return on investment.
I am certain the SA network is dead. They are too far down the unrenewable path to recover. Households and business will increasingly make their own cheaper power instead of paying more for grid power. The network cost will be supported from general revenue (GST and LGCs from other States) to provide some affordable service to those without the option of making their own. Also the State government is locked into taking power from the CSP via the network if it actually produces.
I cannot see the larger States having the capacity to make such a mess in a short time. That gives time for the SA folly to unfold and provide a precautionary example. At some point there will be a realisation, the light globe moment, that there is no economy of scale with wind and solar. Connecting it to the grid and paying high network costs to transport it does not make any sense.
70
If a miracle happens and we get rid of weather-dependent power, what then? We still need more real power stations and as Tony from Oz has said before, it could take seven years to build a new one from scratch. On the other hand, existing sites exist such as Hazelwood and if it hasn’t been flooded yet it has the mine, cooling pond and grid connection already there.
A problem with any new non-weather-dependent power station is that construction might be sabotaged by unions, state government and local councils. The Feds would probably have to use executive powers to make sure the job gets done, including bringing in Chinese workers to do the job because they can build a USC power station on budget in 2 years.
62
I doubt there will be ever any new coal fired power station in Victoria. The heavy industry is already fading; essentially all existing heavy industry is on life support.
There is some prospect of opening known gas reserves and also developing coal seam gas from the brown coal deposits.
I believe any new fossil fuel generation in Victoria will be gas fired. A decent size gas fired generator near existing transmission lines can be up and running inside a year.
Victoria has banned any form of onshore gas exploration and exploitation till 2020 but that may change as the energy prices climb. There is some discussion on building a gas import terminal.
Any energy intensive business will need to tie up its fuel supply for the life of the operation to be viable – just cheaper to get things made in China for now. Low energy intensive users will increasingly opt for solar/battery with grid or diesel supplementing depending on the proximity to the existing grid.
10
There appear to be conflicting opinions on whether Hazelwood can be recommisioned. Tony claims that is not a viable option, TDeF believes that it is merely in hibernation !
Some qualified clarity on this point would be appreciated. Cheers.
00
I don’t believe it is in hibernation, it is under active demolition.
http://www.gdfsuezau.com/media/UploadedDocuments/Hazelwood%20Closure/Fact%20Sheet%205-17%202/FAQs%20Hazelwood%20Closure%20-%20Station%20Decommissioning%20May%202017.pdf
11
Rats! Why turn off something which was delivering near design capacity? This does not make logical or commercial sense.
10
Although I live completely off the energy services grid , that news is depressing as I have family and friends who are suffering from high energy costs. I personally would feel the pinch if the cost of LPG was to skyrocket, as it is showing signs of doing. Must blow the dust off those wood gas producer plans that I downloaded some years ago.
00
No windmills or solar panels in this video!
This is what it looks like inside a 500MW boiler as it starts up with just 6 of 48 burners operating.
The Luddites simply have no concept of the tremendous energies involved in real weather-independent power stations.
https://youtu.be/Yji8pxi3Uvw
42
Looks like a new Conservative party is being formed in WA. The current Liberal opposition leader is a fool who believes in AGW and renewables, so I’m hoping the new party has more sense.
20
Weather-dependent power “generation” now has a life of its own.
We need to return the argument back to first principles and deman evidence that there is a real problem to solve.
Also, as an incidental note, it doesn’t help when people on our side refer to USC coal plant as “low emissions”. The only reason to use such plant is better fuel efficiency if the extra cost of building such plant can be justified.
42
So there’s no remedy available; an assiduously cultivated Australian Public Opinion is demanding evil coal be permanently driven out.
The few hundred people who’ve found their way to this site are an insignificant, fragmented, and probably elderly collection (as anybody who went to the Climate Hustle screenings can attest –you could count the people under thirty on the fingers of one hand in Melbourne).
I can only hope to live to see the unwinding of this financiers’ free for all.
60
Australia’s present grave circumstances are the punishment Australians get for being apathetic and allowing the election of lying, cheating, incompetent vermin for politicians.
72
Now that I’m officially and openly a conspiracy theorist I’m starting to wonder who Turnbull is. Is he another Joyce Mayne/Elon Musk character? Sort of real but more a front or appointee? Was it really his own money tipped into Wentworth? Not saying he’s completely cooked up but there’s something odd about the way he justs goes through the motions like none of it counts. Abbott had a tin ear, but Malcolm is Tin Man.
He isn’t selling space tourism (yet) but the non-existent agile mini-cities, never-to-be oiler subs and Uphill Snowy are not far off pre-paid Moon tours and subscription Mars colonies. It’s like he knows these things won’t happen and he doesn’t care. He needed to say something about power so he said Snowy. (We all grew up on Snowy, Bluey.) He needed to do something about Adelaide and defence (and maybe certain French interests needed to be compensated after certain still larger interests insisted on cancellation of Russian contracts?) so he opted for never-to-be. Never-to-be subs are harder to sink, right?
The problem is that, unlike Merkel, Malcolm is not extending our coal advantage while he placates the Guardianistas with talk of green-this and green-that. Our coal, world’s best supply and our most critical resource, really is in the toilet (unless its on a fast boat to Asia).
Being new to conspiracy theory I’m probably exaggerating. If I am…apologies to Joyce Mayne.
10
Can anybody answer this question for me, as I have not been able to find the answer anywhere. Frydenberg keeps on saying that power companies “must buy a certain level of ‘dispatchable power from gas coal, hydro or batteries’” for every 1 Mwh of “renewable energy” purchased.
Here is the question – what is a “certain level”? No one seems to quote any figure, except one I have seen (Miranda Divine? Who understands nothing) which stated 1:1 – ie, no difference from Labor’s 50% “renewable”.
Does anyone know what the rules will be? Will there be a National rule, or will it vary from State to State. Anyone?
30
They make it up as they go.
42
Subsidies either way is still a subsidy , make them bid a week in advance in 12 hour blocks which if you can’t supply you pay someone else to generate the power .
30
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/654079/uk-weather-winter-forecast-snow-freeze-mini-ice-age-latest-news-update
10
How dumb are our pollies and all of their high paid advisers in AEMO, AEMC, AER and ESB that none of them could come up with a model of how consumers could save $2/week on their electricity bills after 2020. Well here is my estimate:
In 2020, the RET is 23.5% of electricity supplies. All renewable suppliers get to sell renewable energy certificates that currently sell for about 8 cents/KWhr times 23.5%, so that is 1.9 cents/KWhr added on to every household bill. In fact after the retailers add their own margin to that let’s call it 2 cents/KWhr.
The average household consumes about 4,900 Kwhr of electricity/year, so a saving of 2 cents is equal to $98 per year. Not quite their quoted “unmodelled” $115/year but close enough. There will be additional savings if rooftop solar subsidies are factored in as that is additional to the large scale RET. And the sooner the RET is abolished the sooner we can put these savings in our pocket.
Now, how do I submit my consulting fees for this complex modelling?
40
21 Oct: Radio NZ: Climate Change Minister not being ‘downgraded’ – Shaw
The Greens leader James Shaw says he’s not concerned the Climate Change Minister will be outside the Cabinet in the new government
The Greens are set to be in charge of this policy area, but the minister won’t be seated at the Cabinet table, under the party’s confidence and supply agreement with Labour.
In the outgoing government, the portfolio has been held by the Deputy Prime Minister, Paula Bennett.
Mr Shaw said it didn’t mean the portfolio would be downgraded in the new government.
“I do know that climate change and action on climate change will be at the heart of this government’s agenda, that was our whole point during the course of the campaign, it is also, I have to say, one of the areas of alignment with New Zealand First.”
Mr Shaw would not say if he would hold the climate change job, saying announcements would be made by incoming Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
Ms Ardern said she was committed to significant change on climate change policy, even though the incoming minister would be outside Cabinet.
Labour wants to retain the current emissions trading scheme, with changes, but the Green Party opposes this.
Ms Ardern said as Prime Minister, she would work closely with the minister, on climate change policy.
“Regardless of whether I hold that portfolio or not, this is an issue I’m absolutely dedicated to, I will work closely alongside the minister who holds that portfolio, but just because that minister sits outside of Cabinet is not a reason to deprive them of the opportunity to use the experience they bring.”
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/342093/climate-change-minister-not-being-downgraded-shaw
00
One day, maybe in a decade or two, Turnbull will shout us a Macca coffee. Big whoop. Meanwhile we get to ‘save’ the planet from sweet f/a by taxing the snot out of our cheap, reliable fossil fuel energy (a backdoor ETS scam is still going to happen under this Turnbull policy) and shutting industry to pay sorry money to the UN. All to lead by example. An example of what you ask? I say stupidity. That’s a NEG-atory on the Turnbull NEG from me good buddy. Keep your coffee. Give me cheap and reliable power. * Don’t forget to thank Turnbull for increasing our population by 200000 + every year. Increase the population massively and pay billions in penance to the UN for daring to turn on the lights. What could go wrong?
50
Seems a popular subject for some reason
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/10/canada-alone-ag.html#comments
And comments
00
Good luck New Zealand!
The Weekend Australian
Capitalism a blatant failure …
NZ prime-minister-elect doesn’t hold back in her first TV interview, as phone call leaves Aussie journalist ‘flabbergasted’.
00
21 Oct: US News & World Report: Mississippi Could Sue Solar Panel Maker That Owes $74.8M
Mississippi officials could sue a solar panel maker that announced this week that it’s closing its Hattiesburg plant.
by Jeff Amy, Associated Press
The San Jose, California company notified the Mississippi Department of Employment Security on Tuesday that it plans to close its plant Dec. 13, laying off 137 employees…
Stion raised more than $200 million from private investors, in addition to Mississippi’s loan. It promised 1,000 jobs in Hattiesburg when it announced its plans in 2011. But the company was already struggling in 2013 when venture capital firm Khosla Ventures took a controlling interest. That’s the same company that was the lead investor in KiOR, whose biofuel failure sparked an ongoing lawsuit Hood filed in state court. The state argues that top KiOR officials defrauded Mississippi officials, failing to disclose problems with its technical ability to convert wood into the equivalent of crude oil…
Mississippi lost $77 million when KiOR closed its $230 million Columbus plant.
Stion blames its closure on unfair foreign competition, and says that if President Donald Trump imposes anti-dumping tariffs on foreign solar panel makers, it might be able to sell the Hattiesburg plant
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/mississippi/articles/2017-10-21/mississippi-could-sue-solar-panel-maker-that-owes-748m
00
comment in moderation re
US News & World Report: Mississippi Could Sue Solar Panel Maker That Owes $74.8M
former Vice President and Special Envoy for Climate Change at The World Bank, Rachel Kyte:
20 Oct: Devex: Sophie Edwards: Rachel Kyte on 7 challenges facing the sustainable energy agenda
WASHINGTON — As policymakers gear up for the 2017 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 23) in Bonn, the U.N. special representative for sustainable energy has called on them to ensure a “smooth and speedy energy transition” for all, resisting the urge of a “last gasp” for coal financing.
Rachel Kyte delivered her remarks at the launch of the Initiative for Sustainable Energy Policy, which is designed to develop innovative energy policy recommendations for emerging economies and is run out of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
Kyte said the project could play an important role in accelerating progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 7, which aims to connect everyone in the world to energy by 2030, while also keeping to the Paris Agreement by delivering this in a climate-friendly way. A big part of this will lie in helping governments “pivot” away from the old energy provision models — based on centralized, fossil fuel-based utilities — toward newer decarbonized and decentralized models, Kyte said.
Addressing an audience gathered at the SAIS campus in Washington, D.C., Kyte — who is also CEO of Sustainable Energy for All, a multi-stakeholder initiative to drive the SDGs’ energy agenda — outlined seven major challenges that need to be overcome in order to ensure a “smooth and speedy” energy transition…
2. Energy efficiency is “overlooked and unloved”
“So how to make energy efficiency sexy again is a very important challenge for this new initiative,” she said…
4. A future without coal
“The tussle over coal continues,” Kyte said, and while she is sympathetic to generations of coal miners who have had “the carpet … ripped from underneath them” as the world moves away from the fossil fuel, she was firm in her stance that there is no place for coal in future energy plans…
However, if we are to avoid a “last gasp” of the coal industry, especially in developing countries, “the international community [needs] to come together and offer better alternatives [and] not just analysis,” she said, as well as presenting a “pathway forward with available finance for those alternatives.”…
5. Infrastructure finance
“There’s an enormous fascination with the idea that there is all this trapped capital in pension funds … of the developed world and that … a couple of magic buttons … need to be pressed and all that capital will find its way into large-scale infrastructure projects in developing countries,” Kyte said. “But that’s not going to happen now or any time soon,” she added…READ ON
https://www.devex.com/news/rachel-kyte-on-7-challenges-facing-the-sustainable-energy-agenda-91309
20
VIDEO: 18secs: 17 Sept: WRAL: ‘It is in shambles’: St. Thomas solar farm destroyed by Irma
‘It is in shambles’: St. Thomas solar farm destroyed by Irma
Reporter: Ken Smith
http://www.wral.com/weather/video/16953107/
16 Sept: Getty Image: Hurricane Irma destroyed almost all of the 16,748 panels in this solar farm September 17, 2017 in Charlotte Amalie, St Thomas, The U.S. Virgin Islands.
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/2yhZDre01g_/Virgin+Islands+Continues+Major+Recovery+Efforts/krHWZuXKdHk
10
7 Oct: NYT: Stanley Reed: Germany’s Shift to Green Power Stalls, Despite Huge Investments
Edmund Heaphy contributed reporting from Berlin
The farm has been a beneficiary of “Energiewende,” the German word for energy transition…
The benefits of the program have not been universally felt, however. A de facto class system has emerged, saddling a group of have-nots with higher electricity bills that help subsidize the installation of solar panels and wind turbines elsewhere.
Germany has spent an estimated 189 billion euros, or about $222 billion, since 2000 on renewable energy subsidies. But emissions have been stuck at roughly 2009 levels, and rose last year, as coal-fired plants fill a void left by Germany’s decision to abandon nuclear power. That has raised questions — and anger — over a program meant to make the country’s power sector greener…
This lack of progress is an “illustration of the partial failure of the energy transition,” said Artur Lenkowski, an energy analyst at IHS Markit, a research firm. “The whole point of the energy transition was to lower greenhouse gas emissions.”…
But renewable energy subsidies are financed through electric bills, meaning that Energiewende is a big part of the reason prices for consumers have doubled since 2000.
These big increases “are absolutely not O.K.,” said Thomas Engelke, team leader for construction and energy at the Federation of German Consumer Organizations, an umbrella organization of consumer groups.
The higher prices have had political consequences…
Mr. Hermneuwöhner, a 27-year-old computer science student, said his family paid an additional €800 a year because of Energiewende.
“But it hasn’t brought lower CO2 emissions,” he said. “It’s frustrating that we’re paying so much more, because the country hasn’t gotten anything for it.”…READ ON
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/business/energy-environment/german-renewable-energy.html
20
20 Oct: Bloomberg: Anna Hirtenstein: Renewable Energy Threatens the World’s Biggest Science Project
Inside the $24 billion long bet on fusion power in France.
Components of the 20 billion-euro ($24 billion) project are already starting to pile up at a construction site in the south of France, where about 800 scientists plan to test whether they can harness the power that makes stars shine. Assembly of the machine will start in May. Unlike traditional nuclear plants that split atoms, the so-called ITER reactor will fuse them together at temperatures 10-times hotter than the Sun — 150 million degrees Celsius (270 million Fahrenheit)…
Its startling complexity, with more than a million pieces and sponsors in 35 countries, mean questions remain about over whether the reactor will work or if it can deliver electricity at anything like the cost of more traditional forms of clean energy. With wind-farm developers starting to promise subsidy-free power by 2025 and electricity demand stagnating, even the project’s supporters are asking whether ITER will ever make sense.
“I’m dubious,” said Chris Llewellyn Smith, director of energy research at Oxford University who has spoken in favor of the research project. “The cost of wind and solar has come down so rapidly, so the competition has become harder to beat than you could have conceivably imagined a decade ago.”…
Now, as wind and solar farms spread, some without the help of subsidies, ITER in Provence is still decades away from proving whether its scientific theories can be put into practice…
In the decades it will take to prove itself, renewables are likely to mushroom, thanks to a 62 percent plunge in the cost of solar panels over the past five years. Wind energy has followed similar trends as turbine sizes surged, boosting the spark coming from each unit. Batteries also are spreading, reducing the need for utilities to maintain a constant “baseload” of supply that ITER would feed to the grid.
***“The concept of the need for baseload generation is fading away,” said Paolo Frankl, who heads the renewable power division of the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based institution advising nations on energy. “Technically, you could run a system 100 percent on renewables and even 100 percent just wind and solar.”
Frankl says countries backing the project should stick with it because the research still might pay off…
***“It’s a dream to feel we could go on only with solar energy,” Bernard Bigot, the French theoretical chemist who is director-general of ITER, said in an interview at the group’s site near Marseille. “You need a reliable supply of energy. If you don’t have baseload energy, renewable energy doesn’t work, unless you want go back to the time where people had to stop when there were no resources.”…READ ON
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-20/renewable-energy-threatens-the-world-s-biggest-science-project?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&cmpId=google
10
As it turns out Turnbull’s promise of the $2 cut in the never never itsn’t really a promise anyway. It’s not even fake news. It’s simply a myth, and all thinking people know that is the case. If he really meant it he would pass legislation to enforce it. Of course he won’t and in fact can’t because it can and will be overturned as soon as the ALP wins office. Why his party still support him is lunacy, and in fact electoral suicide.
20
I have to confess. I already spent next decade’s $2. Couldn’t wait. Just had to have those Smarties.
30
The fact that Turnbull and his drones think a saving of $2 per week is even significant to we serfs again proves how out of touch with reality they are.
The picture that goes with my comment is here:
https://thehiddencultureblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/turnbull-insignificant-worms.jpg?w=410&h=317
21
Will it bring back the automobile manufactures?
Australia just made its last ever car
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/australia-just-made-its-last-ever-car/ar-AAtKZkB?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
10
Turnbull wants to lose the election.
If labor wins it means his left wing policies are in place.
He and wife Lucy are labor people.
They will celebrate with the A.L.P.
20