JoNova

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


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Is this the start of the death-spiral for old windfarms in Europe

Wind farms need subsidies, Josh.

The subsidy that flows whatever the weather  |  by  Josh.

How do you know when an industry is a loser? When even repowering old turbines, which were put in the best spots, is not worth the trouble unless they get a subsidy, I mean, even more subsidies.

Remember the days when subsidies were needed to get a project going?

Maintenance is not an option

Europe is full of old windfarms. The original subsidies have run out and there’s not much appetite for new ones. Without more free money from taxpayers the most economic option for older turbines is to run them into the ground and give up on them. Maintenance costs are the silent plague. But so too is red tape and legal approval. The age of the European turbines is reaching the point where half of the entire fleet is facing do or die decisions.

John Constable of the GWPF wonders if the wind industry in Europe may be on the point of collapse.

And Europe’s fleet is old:

By 2020, 41% of the currently installed capacity in Germany will be over 15 years old, 44% in Spain, and 57% in Denmark.

John Constable is responding to a renewables policy cheerleaders, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), who recently released the hopeful vested fantasy study: Repower to the People. But the days of ripe subsidies are over, so even the industry sympathizers have to admit that owners of old turbines face a set of no-fun decisions.

Sites with existing wind farms are often impossible to repower due to lack of availability of the site, legal consent, changes in subsidies, environmental protection, public acceptance, or insufficient wind conditions. (p. 1265)

And there’s not much empty space to allow for new and larger gaps between turbines and houses. Residents have wised up to the price of living to close to them:

…the state of Bavaria has even “introduced in 2014 a regulation that sets a new minimum distance of ten times the tip-height between a wind turbine and the closest residential areas” (L. Ziegler et al.). A modern machine can be upwards of 120 metres (nearly 400 feet) to tip, so this implies a separation of over three quarters of a mile, and would rule out many existing onshore wind farms in the UK, particularly in England, where at present there is no formally required separation distance.

Read it all at GWPF: Wind farm Lifetime extensions and repowering

REFERENCE

L. Ziegler et al. (2018) “Lifetime extension of onshore wind turbines: a review covering Germany Spain, Denmark, and the UKRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82 (2018), 1261–1271)

 

 

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (82 votes cast)
Is this the start of the death-spiral for old windfarms in Europe, 9.2 out of 10 based on 82 ratings

194 comments to Is this the start of the death-spiral for old windfarms in Europe

  • #
    Dennis

    Apparently our governments only see as far as the Australian coastline.

    251

    • #
      PeterS

      That’s correct. They only need to see as far as the voters who are asleep living close to the coastline. That’s enough to gain power, occasionally handing over the green batten to the other side to take a rest.

      160

    • #
      GD

      Apparently our governments only see as far as the Australian coastline.

      Australian governments only see as far as the next election.

      50

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Send them over here will pay cash and over new price .

    22

  • #
    Roger

    The European Wind Energy Association (now renamed “WindEurope”) began lobbying Brussels last summer for new subsidies on old wind farms to ‘keep them operating’. They argued that without new subsidy it was uneconomic to replace end-of-life wind turbines. I pointed that out here last Autumn with links to the report produced for the lobbying.

    This followed statements from them in April 2017:
    “In short, too many policy-makers and opinion-formers think offshore wind is much more expensive than it really is, and many think it’s going to remain that way. Not enough people appreciate that it is already competitive. That needs to be corrected.”
    Link here

    The lobbying later in 2017 argued (despite the sweeping claims that wind energy is as cheap as fossil fuel)that without a new subsidy on wind farms that are reaching the end of their life and their subsidy period they will have to close down as uneconomic to replace / repair. They want this subsidy to be at the same level as for new installations.

    There is no doubt that there have been bids for offshore wind – as opposed to onshore wind – in the UK, Germany, Holland and elsewhere in Europe that appear to be remarkably low. resulting in cliams by the Green Blob and the climate-industrial complex that no subsidy is required for some of these.

    BUT – Bids are one thing, What remains to be seen is what, if any, of those ‘cheap’ wind farms will ever be built.

    There is a currently emerging problem with marine wind farms where the life of the installation is being found to be just a few years before blades and turbines are failing.

    So much BS is spouted by the ‘green’ climate-industrial complex as it fills its pockets with money from the poorest in society.

    540

    • #
      Graham Richards

      Wind becomes a problem with the onset of ageing. I speak from experience. It’ll be fun to watch the whole lot implode! Think they’ll have the same problem with their wind thingy, you know ,the smell of decay which comes with wind problems!

      320

      • #
        Hanrahan

        Wind becomes a problem with the onset of ageing.

        Mrs H tells me that.

        180

      • #
        Kauf

        …aside from the pesky little *detail* of the blades killing thousands of birds, many “protected” species.

        80

      • #
        Yonniestone

        We’re gonna need a lot of charCOAL tablets then………..

        60

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        As they age more will fail in spectacular ways *fire*.
        And the media might get a clue that these are failing a lot. Fun times ahead it seems :)

        90

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Here’s me thinking wind farms make power – they don’t…they are, in reality, fossil fuel powered…

        All that plastic that goes into those bank notes that pays for them, has to come from oil.

        Ergo….

        PS – I guess you could pay form them in goats , or a choir that screams at the sky… the possibilities are endless…wind farms are a fertile source of material to mock.

        110

      • #
        WXcycles

        Vegans have the best wind farms, all that [carbon] fibre, they’re full of it.

        80

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T here – relevant to previous thread

    ““Get used to it” – The New York Green Energy Champion who Runs Australia’s Energy Market”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/13/get-used-to-it-the-new-york-green-energy-champion-who-runs-australias-energy-market/

    110

    • #
      Another Ian

      ” a happy little debunker
      May 13, 2018 at 6:57 pm

      Australia draining Trump’s swamp – one Clintonite at a time.

      What could possibly go wrong?”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/13/get-used-to-it-the-new-york-green-energy-champion-who-runs-australias-energy-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2816702

      163

      • #
        PeterS

        Yes the Green Yankees are coming over here to escape Trump. What’s worse is Actor Matt Damon considering move to Australia because he can’t stand Donald Trump
        Stay away Matt Damon. We don’t want fools like you even if you are rich. How about you and all others like you, which is a lot move to Canada? Sorry for any Canadians reading this.

        291

        • #
          RAH

          I would say you could have all of them but I wouldn’t wish that on Australia though there are several other countries I would. And Canada is too close. I have to note that none of the fools, not even communist Michael Moore, are moving to Cuba, which many of them have in the past complimented as a socialist heaven. I doubt any of them are giving up their US citizenship either. Hypocrisy is their code you know.

          The thing is Trump has done absolutely nothing to hurt them financially or in any other substantive way and in fact with the economy expanding and wages and jobs increasing the average US citizen will have more disposable income to spend on things like entertainment.

          151

        • #
          RAH

          And BTW since these people are moving they obviously are just smart enough to not believe in the supposed “Blue Wave” that we have been told over and over again is coming when the mid-term elections occur later this year. So they don’t even buy what their own sides press has been trying to sell. I’m going to go out on a limb and project that Republicans will hold majorities in both houses and the proportion of real Trump supporters in office in the Republican part will grow after the mid term dust settles.

          170

          • #
            F. Ross

            Hoping your projection comes true!

            …project that Republicans will hold majorities in both houses and the proportion of real Trump supporters in office in the Republican part will grow…

            With apologies for borrowing from the Bard of Avon… “’tis a consummation devoutly to be wished “

            70

        • #
          James

          Australia can have him with our compliments!

          13

        • #
          RicDre

          Speaking of Yanks moving to other countries, I read that Hillary Clinton considered moving to New Zealand after her loss to Donald Trump, but decided to stay in the US instead.

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/07/hillary-clinton-considered-permanently-relocating-to-new-zealand-after-defeat/

          40

          • #
            toorightmate

            The poor Kiwis now have their very own Clinton-type as PM.
            Heaven help them, they are too nice to be destroyed by Ms Fang.

            161

          • #
            MudCrab

            Of course she did.

            I considered going out last Saturday night… but didn’t. When I next run into the people who own the clubs I ‘considered’ going to (but didn’t) do you really think that gives me any kudos?

            I also considered moving to Perth to follow the work last year… but didn’t. Does that make me an adopted Western Australian?

            Sorry, but ‘considering’ is easy. Running around claiming that you ‘considered’ doing something is a lazy way of faking knowledge and interest about a topic you really know nothing about.

            40

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Yes, we have enough people whose professional job is playing make believe…..they are called politicians, and we would be happy to export them to another country, a bit like telephone sanitizers….

          60

          • #
            Allen Ford

            I believe that commercial flights to Mars are only just around the corner, or at least that’s what the media keep telling us.

            A more useful repository I cannot imagine for the lefty loonies!

            00

          • #
            RAH

            One has to understand that the primary weapon of the progressive socialists is language. They don’t have the real data or the facts or the lessons of history to back them up so they trap people into promoting their premises using catch words or phrases. For example just this morning on another board I read where a guy that is skeptic used the word “recovery” in reference to Arctic sea ice. “Recovery” to what? It is a word that implies that there has been damage or something unusual going on with the Arctic sea ice and it needs to be repaired or to some action taken to make it better again. That is the trap a one must always be aware of when dealing the socialist progressives. NEVER accept their premise out of hand and don’t be fooled into parroting it using the words they concoct to support it.

            50

        • #

          We already have our little California North. It is called Vancouver. Send them there, maybe we can build a fence around it.

          20

  • #
    Peter C

    How long might these Wind Turbines last?

    There was a wind plant in WA which closed a few years ago. I can’t find the reference now. I thought it was at Exmouth, but not sure.

    The Wind Plant at Esperance might be the oldest on the country, if it is still operating;

    Ten Mile Lagoon wind farm is situated on a coastal ridge 16 kilometres west of Esperance in Western Australia, and it lies in the northern extremities of the reliable Roaring Forties winds. It was Australia’s first commercial wind farm that is still operating, and consists of nine 225 kW Vestas wind turbines[1] giving a total generating capacity of just over 2 Megawatts.[2] The farm was established in October 1993, after the successful operation of a smaller experimental wind farm at Salmon Beach, Esperance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Mile_Lagoon_Wind_Farm

    None of the reference links in the Wikipedia article work. That is frustrating. Do the activists take them down deliberately?

    80

    • #
      Peter C

      Are hear we go. Espernance Wind Plant likely closed in 2014.
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/locals-fear-esperance-wind-farm-will-not-be-replaced/5627136

      None the less, that would be 21 years which is a long period for a wind turbine.

      Does anyone know if the site has been rehabilitated?

      70

    • #
      Peter C

      ABC News has taken down their article dated 4 April 2015. Fake News?
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-04/the-ten-mile-lagoon-wind-farm-in-esperance-run-by/6370866

      I suspect that the wind farm had already closed by the time that the article was published.

      100

    • #
      Rob Leviston

      Here is a more recent ABC report. Might be able to find more from Synergy? Haven’t got that far myself! Also trip advisor, have reports of visitors still seeing operating windmills at the site, so possibly still functioning, for now at least.
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/locals-fear-esperance-wind-farm-will-not-be-replaced/5627136

      40

      • #
        Peter C

        Thanks Rob,

        None of the visitors in Trip Advisor actually said that they say the turbines. They were more interested in the view of the sea.

        AS for ABC, see above (posted after your reply)

        41

      • #

        So Synergy’s two wind “farms” save 10,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year. Well, if the estimated carbon footprint of 240,000+ tonnes per wind turbine (not counting fossil fuel supplementation, mining, transport to site, extra transmission infrastructure etc) is anywhere near accurate…

        Oh, I give up. One can fiddle numbers up or down forever. It does take an Olympic pool of cement to fix five turbines in place. I’m getting out of skepticism and into the cement business. Got my carpet bag packed. If anyone complains I’m hurting the planet thingy I’ll just tell ‘em to talk to the Zibelman.

        260

        • #
          PeterF

          You have it backwards. the carbon footprint is 3-6,000 tonnes, but over its life a typical 2.4 MW wind turbine will displace 240,000 tonnes of CO2 from coal generation

          00

    • #
      Peter C

      The original Esperance wind Farm lasted only 15 years.

      Salmon Beach Wind Farm, the first in Australia, no longer operates but two turbines have been retained for historical interest.

      The farm operated from 1987 for nearly 15 years, but was decommissioned in 2002

      http://ramblingsdc.net/WindWA.html#Ten_Mile_Lagoon_Wind_Farm

      Note: the ramlings website is partly blocked out (out of date News?)

      130

    • #
      Hanrahan

      There is a wind farm on Atherton Tableland on Windy Point which had blades missing when I drove that way many years ago. Had to do it again to retrieve my daughter stranded by floods recently and every turbine was spinning. But Qld never generates any wind power according to renewenergy. Three fifths of five eights of bugger all output obviously.

      90

    • #
      James

      I posted some photos of abandoned wind farms over on breitbart I think it might have been. A commentator replied that they were old turbines made in the 80’s, and what is there that is that old that is still in regular use.

      I replied, quoting the average age of coal power plants, nuclear plants, and gas fired plants. I then mentioned that I fly in a Cherokee airplane that was made in 1972, and regularly drive one car made in 1966, and 1983 throughout the summer. I did not receive any other comments from that wind power lover!

      210

    • #
      DAW

      German website notrickszone.com ran an article a month or two back showing a wind turbine being dismantled ( one of many to go) With commentary that they are required by law to completely remove and rehabilitate the site. The video shows them jack hammering approx two metres of the top of the concrete footing and then covering it in – not legal.

      30

    • #
      DAW

      German website notrickszone.com ran an article a month or two back showing a wind turbine being dismantled ( one of many to go) With commentary that they are required by law to completely remove and rehabilitate the site. The video shows them jack hammering approx two metres of the top of the concrete footing and then covering it in – not legal.

      70

  • #

    “…the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), who recently released the hopeful vested fantasy study: Repower to the People…”

    Creepy alphabet soup NGO – which has not been funded just by the threepenny pieces saved from Christmas puddings – wants something for the people. For the people. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?…Oh yeah, just prior to every mass rip-off of the people in the last two decades.

    140

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Climate Intelligence Unit – isn’t that a contradiction in terms…?

      90

      • #
        Another Ian

        OS

        I’d suggest “Climate Enthusiasms Unit would fly better.

        Going on that “Government intelligence” as a term doesn’t generate nearly as much enthusiasm as “Government Enthusiasms”

        So

        30

  • #
    Mark M

    9 letter word, begins with ‘r’ …

    Climate warming to weaken wind power in northern hemisphere: study

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-12/climate-warming-set-to-change-wind-power-globally-study-shows/9249820

    A. redundant.

    50

  • #
    pat

    not according to those climate experts at WWF:

    14 May: BusinessGreen: Is it time to follow the coal phase out with a gas phase out target?
    by Gareth Redmond-King, WWF
    (Gareth Redmond-King is head of climate and energy policy at WWF-UK)
    WWF’s Gareth Redmond-King argues that when you look at the UK’s current energy infrastructure trends there is no need to respond to the coal phase out with a new ‘dash for gas’
    So the trick now is to move from coal to clean. What we don’t want is to ditch one fossil fuel, only to replace it with another, using huge plants built to run for 30 years or more…
    To-date, rapid deployment and plummeting costs of solar and wind have played a huge part in decarbonising UK electricity – to the point where nearly a third of our power comes from renewables…

    WWF, with Sandbag (LINK), calculate that we can phase out coal without another (and I really hate this phrase…) ‘dash for gas’. In fact, we’re pretty sure that we don’t need any new large-scale gas to smooth the way to a clean future for UK power.

    Why? Well, mainly because most of the existing coal generation that needs to be replaced has already been replaced – 14GW across seven power stations. Enough capacity to cover five of those plants has already been contracted for – half with flexible supply (demand management, storage, interconnectors), and half with a mix of smaller, flexible fossil fuel generation and lifespan-extensions in the existing gas fleet. That leaves just short of 3GW to replace – which looks likely to be covered on a similar basis…

    Now, the eagle-eyed amongst you may have spotted that we’re banking the replacement of some of that coal with other fossil fuels. And sure – a small part of that is pretty bad (small diesel engines – so, with air pollution into the mix, as well as carbon emissions). But a lot of it is small gas generation, and none of it needs to be used very often. Given that, and because these smaller units are more readily ‘turnable-off-and-on-able’ (as the Creature Comforts ads would have it) than large gas plants, this all has a much lower overall impact than building big new gas would have.

    But on top of this, output from renewables is set to hit a level by 2025 that outstrips the highest point of coal-generation so far this century. And almost all of that renewable capacity is already contracted or being built. With another £500m to spend on mainly offshore wind, we can be confident the remaining required capacity is deliverable before the demise of coal…

    But it would be nice really to nail this down and ensure that renewables, energy efficiency and flexibility are the only answer to replacing coal. Government could do that by opening the doors again for onshore wind and solar – getting both over the threshold to being subsidy-free. Along with a much bigger push on innovative storage solutions, that’d only leave one more thing for government to do next. Yep, it’s time to set a date for a gas phase-out next!

    The Coal to Clean report is available here (LINK)
    https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/opinion/3032179/is-it-time-to-follow-the-coal-phase-out-with-a-gas-phase-out-target

    13 May: Guardian: ‘From coal to clean’ – UK does not need to turn to gas, says WWF
    Report suggests renewables, battery storage and flexible technologies can replace coal plants
    by Adam Vaughan
    A spokesperson for Drax said: “A reliable power system depends on a range of generation technologies to provide crucial system support services.”
    Tom Glover, the UK country chair for RWE, said: “The exact amount of gas capacity required is extremely uncertain but the vast majority of forecasts anticipate a significantly higher requirement than suggested in this report.”…

    50

    • #
      Hanrahan

      ….plummeting costs of solar and wind….

      They say that, and add batteries for good measure but “plummeting” is a subjective measure used because they can’t actually quantify this or give a percentage amount. Batteries need an order of magnitude reduction before they could be truly viable for home or grid storage on a large scale. Can’t happen because they are a commodity, not a technology.

      I can say that petrol/gas usage in IC cars is “plummeting” because each year there are real improvements but is it “plummeting”? Prolly not.

      90

      • #
        toorightmate

        Our wonderful journos may soon invent “plummeting catastrophically”.
        Wont that sound impressive on the 6 o’clock news?

        40

        • #
          Another Ian

          TRM

          “Our wonderful journos may soon invent “plummeting catastrophically”.”

          That is for when it plummets up

          20

        • #
          yarpos

          Like skydivers, they never just fall to their death, they plummet.

          20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      pat:

      “almost all of that renewable capacity is already contracted or being built – With another £500m to spend on mainly offshore wind Government could do that by opening the doors again for onshore wind and solar – getting both over the threshold to being subsidy-free.”
      But aren’t onshore wind and solar ALREADY subsidy-free? Isn’t that why no-one is building new ‘farms’?
      Someone failed logical thinking.

      60

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        £500 million? that would not build more than another 500 turbines, surely, especially off-shore? even at full nameplate that could not provide the power required.

        40

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      These people live in cloud cuckoo land…the UK which has even less sun than Oz and a bigger population would be committing suicide by considering renewables as the main power source….but inst that the idea?

      70

  • #
    Binny

    With out a doubt the tax payer will end up footing the bill to dismantle them as well. Probably more than the origonal construction cost.

    230

  • #
    ROM

    Maybe somebody else has some more info on this one from the Main Islands to the east of us otherwise known as NZ [ With so many Kiwis here we were at one stage known as the West Island amongst the residents of the Shaky Isles ]

    The Wind industry in NZ is reputedly trying on a policy that they should be paid ie; subsidised not on the KwH that they claim to produce but on the plated output of each turbine.

    I can imagine the Danes in the executive suites of their turbine producers sending a missive down the line that the Plates for the wind turbines destined for NZ are to have another 5 Kws added to each turbine’s claimed output .
    After all those Kiwis are at the end of the world and way down on the other side so who the hell will notice or even know in that god forsaken part of the globe.

    And then in due course, a small number of brown paper bags arrive from NZ for distribution amongst the wind turbine producing’s organisations executives .

    And of course the wind turbines would never wear out as they wouldn’t need to turn except for demonstration purposes when politicians and the media and etc go bye..
    Which incidently for those not knowing this it of shonky propoganda as usual from the wind industry, Turbines can be seen turning on dead calm days most particularly if some VIP or government lackeys happen to be passing by during the day.

    Power for the turning coming direct from the Grid of course.
    Grid power is normally used when the turbine is not generating power on its own behalf to brake and feather the blades and keep oils and etc at operating temperaturesturn the whole gazumful up the top of the tower to face into any forecast wind. Plus preventing the sagging or bowing of the main rotor shaft. with its immense blade / rotor weight hanging out there in the breeze if it sits in one position for more than a few hours .

    Very large Ships propeller shafts are kept turning very slowly whildst in port as do also do the rotors of the the big steam turbines whilst they are down for maintenence.

    .

    Energy consumption in wind facilities

    Could it be that at times each turbine consumes more than 50% of its rated capacity in its own operation?!
    If so, the plant as a whole — which may produce only 25% of its rated capacity annually — would be using (for free!) twice as much electricity as it produces and sells. An unlikely situation perhaps, but the industry doesn’t publicize any data that proves otherwise; incoming power is apparently not normally recorded.

    Is there some vast conspiracy spanning the worldwide industry from manufacturers and developers to utilities and operators? There doesn’t have to be, if engineers all share an assumption that wind turbines don’t use a significant amount of power compared to their output and thus it is not worth noting, much less metering.
    Such an assumption could be based on the experience decades ago with small DC-generating turbines, simply carried over to AC generators that continue to metastasize.
    However errant such an assumption might now be, it stands as long as no one questions it. No conspiracy is necessary — self-serving laziness is enough.

    Whatever the actual amount of consumption, it could seriously diminish any claim of providing a significant amount of energy. Instead, it looks like industrial wind power could turn out to be a laundering scheme: “Dirty” energy goes in, “clean” energy comes out.
    That would explain why developers demand legislation to create a market for “green credits” — tokens of “clean” energy like the indulgences sold by the medieval church. Ego te absolvo.

    (One need only ask utilities to show how much less “dirty” electricity they purchase because of wind-generated power to see that something is amiss in the wind industry’s claims.
    If wind worked and were not mere window dressing, the industry would trot out some real numbers. But they don’t. One begins to suspect that they can’t.

    *Wayne Gulden has analyzed the daily production reports of a Vestas V82 1.65-MW wind turbine at the University of Minnesota, Morris, from 2006 to 2008. Those records include negative production, i.e., net consumption, as well as daily average wind speeds. The data suggest that the turbine consumes at a minimum rate of about 50 kW, or 8.3% of its reported production over those years (which declined 2-4% each year).

    There is also the matter of reactive power (VAR). As wind facilities are typically built in remote areas, they are often called upon to provide VAR to maintain line voltage. Thus much of their production may go to providing only this “energy-less” power.

    130

  • #
    TdeF

    So the renewables are quickly becoming replaceables? Day after Tomorrow. Quell Horreur.

    Who is going to pay to replace the money spinners this time around? In hindsight, how much pristine land did they really need? How many trees had to be chopped down for access and clean wind? How many pretty harbors and bays are now full of the rusting things ruining the seascape and a danger to all shipping and how many landscapes have been eternally ruined by old, rusted, useless windmills which have stopped turning? What happens when the nice white paint peels off? Would a new Constable be enchanted enough to paint the Old Windmill?

    Most importantly, for the 400,000 huge windmills, how much has the world benefited? How much has steady 20th century CO2 growth been affected? What! Not at all? After Trillions of dollars? Then why did they ruin the landscapes of Europe for nothing and at vast expense? This question was asked four centuries ago but they had no choice.

    However, the wind lobby still has enthusiasm and not unexpectedly they are masters of spin. Replacing all the renewables is now called ‘repowering’.

    How many marketing meetings did it take to come up with such a nicely bland word for such an utter waste of vast sums of everyone else’s money. Then how much did it matter as long as people believed it would make a difference? It didn’t. It just pushed coal power prices through the roof while the recipients partied on their yachts in Monaco.

    180

    • #
      TdeF

      They were not called renewables for nothing. People just do not listen.

      110

    • #
      TdeF

      Then there is the chutzpah that perfectly functional coal power stations like Port Augusta, Hazelwood and Liddell have to be shut down, dismantled and blown up instead of being ‘renewed’. This is despite the devastation to local communities and soaring power prices.

      We are told we cannot fix them or build more because they take billions of dollars and five of six years to rebuild. Then why were they shut in the first place? Oh, to reduce CO2. I forgot. Did that work?

      170

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        People like ISIS and the Taliban blow up bits of the physical culture ( like statues etc ) they have just conquered, so they can make over society in their own twisted image….

        It is what it is…..

        50

        • #
          WXcycles

          Spot on.

          “If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.” The non-renewable ‘cure’ is much worse than the fake ‘disease’. “We had to destroy it to save it!”

          Solar is likewise non-renewable, because people never include the full engineering and materials instalation costs, somehow those are never included, then the hardware, fittings, cables, regulators, inverters, batteries, battery room, then the maintainence costs, failure costs, then replacement cost.

          No, just the sticker price of the panel and its nameplate kw rating is ‘accounted’ for in the false claim that solar is both cheap, and also renewable.

          Without net profit, that which could be renewed, will not be renewed.

          Solar is ultimately an uneconomic hole in your roof which you must keep pouring money into,.

          But atleast you don’t have a power bill … oh, except you do have to pay taxes, to supply the outrageous subsidies, that put the money pit on your roof, which you are now stuck with the cost of fixing and “re-newing”.

          Oh yeah, this is great, paying in every possible way to pluck your own eye out, rather than getting a single cheap predictable and stable quarterly baseload-coal power utility bill.

          Yay! Saved!

          Now let’s blow-up the golden goose!

          90

    • #
      TdeF

      I was quite amazed that the John Constable of reference has the same name as the famous English landscape painter, a favorite of mine. He painted a fine windmill or lock or waterwheel. The things we had before we had the coal driven steam engine. We may yet go back there, if the Malcolm’s Luddite Greens keep shutting down our society.

      80

    • #
  • #
    RAH

    “And Europe’s fleet is old:
    By 2020, 41% of the currently installed capacity in Germany will be over 15 years old, 44% in Spain, and 57% in Denmark.”

    15 years of operation is nothing for a coal fired unit!

    130

    • #
      TdeF

      Besides, like a factory with maintenance, it never grows old. The real truth is that you have to replace renewables.

      90

      • #
        RAH

        The way properly run coal fired units age is like that of a perfectly maintained car. They can continue to operate and the owner can make improvements but as technology and engineering advances newer designs emerge using systems that are more efficient and less maintenance intensive.

        80

        • #
          TdeF

          Sure, but the old units work fine. The new ones have new problems. Like cars. You are told everything is more efficient and with less maintenance and lots of computers, but that is usually because they are unserviceable and fundamentally disposable. Like cars again. If you modern car has a computer fault, what do you fix? You are told to buy a new one with new bugs.

          70

          • #
            yarpos

            Well you can fix/replace the software. An old work friend of mine recently had his fancy AMG Merc (worth more than my house) play up. They tried to do a software update that didnt work and then couldnt roll it back, disabling the car.

            Five weeks later he finally got it back. They eventually had to directly connect it back to Germany to manage the fix.

            20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        TdeF:

        I remember when the new Engineer decided in 1971 that the salt water pump needed maintenance because it hadn’t had any for 24 years. This was a large centrifugal single stage unit that ran a minimum of 120 hours a week with an output roughly 100,000 litres per hour.

        When they had examined the (supposedly worn) bearings the Chief Engineer ordered it be reassembled as carefully as possible without any change. But as he said rather sadly we shouldn’t have touched it, they are never the same afterwards.

        100

      • #
        sophocles

        The real truth is that you have to replace renewables.

        … which is exactly why they’re called renewables. Every 10, 15 or 20 years, they have to be renewed.

        20

    • #
      PeterS

      40 years is average for coal fired power plants. 50-70 for nuclear. Makes wind farms look like they are built as disposal items. Not very environmentally friendly.

      130

      • #
        TdeF

        The windfarms are disposable, but the coal and nuclear figures are possibly much better than even these figures suggest.

        Coal power stations can be closed and moved for other very practical reasons, like average distance to the coal seam or that the coal seam is exhausted. It does not mean that the serviceable coal power plant is not functioning perfectly but you tend to initially locate it as close to the coal as possible and over time, the easy obtained coal moves away. This is an economy, not a loss of function.

        Nuclear is possibly that some of the core components cannot be replaced without a complete shut down but the figure is suspect since 70 years takes us back to 1948 when there were no nuclear power stations. This range means means almost all are still running since installation, but people want a figure.

        Remember in WW2 that Russia moved most of their heavy manufacturing from centres like Moscow and Leningrad across the Urals, entire factories. This included power and foundries. They were up and running in weeks. An incredible feat but factories and power plants are incredibly mobile. Wind farms cannot be moved, cannot be serviced and when they fail, they and their purpose built transmission lines remain another blot on the landscape.

        60

        • #
          TdeF

          Consider our only Nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, Sydney. Commissioned, 1958 Decommissioned, 2007 10Megawatts.

          The High Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR) was Australia’s first nuclear reactor. It was built at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (later ANSTO) Research Establishment at Lucas Heights, Sydney. The reactor was in operation between 1958 and 2007, when it was superseded by the Open-pool Australian lightwater reactor, also in Lucas Heights.

          So 50 years operation and then superseded, not failed.

          40

    • #
      C. Paul Barreira

      Has there ever been a more wasteful generation than the present one?

      70

      • #
        yarpos

        doesnt every generation say that?

        10

        • #
          TdeF

          No. Before WW2 very few people had anything at all. Unemployment Australia was 40%. In the US 25%. Poverty was widespread in Europe, especially in Italy. People were just recovering and militarization was a way out. The terrible dust storms and heat in the US wiped out crops and populations. Amazingly after the war, consumerism created a revolution and people could afford brick homes, heaters, water heaters, stoves, electricity and they built power stations. Their children enjoyed them. Now the grandchildren vote for people who in a few years have destroyed what took two generations to build.

          No this prolific waste is new. Trillions on nothing. Fake science. Fake news. Pretend caring. Pretend emancipation and the pulling down of everything from countries to manufacturing. All for pretend liberalism, anarchy in another guise making the rich richer and the poor poorer, using taxes to pay people not to work when the power goes off.

          You can lay this all at the feet of the UN/EU and their friends. Socialism masquerading as environmentalism. Now who is better off for all this waste? Can Tim Flannery retire yet? Al Gore is a billionaire. Pachauri has retired. No, this is the generation which threw it all away. The only shining light is a seventy year old businessman who took the most important job in the world for $1 a year. There is hope we can stop the destruction of what was built by others before a borderless world descends into anarchy.

          40

  • #
    Ruairi

    Wind farms can’t go it alone,
    And for Greens, their project is blown,
    Being now on its knees,
    Needing huge subsidies,
    Which the public at large won’t condone.

    220

    • #
      Peter C

      Which the public at large won’t condone.

      Well they probably wouldn’t, if only they knew what it was and what it means for them (us)

      70

  • #
    JoKAH

    Large turbines and other heavy rotating shafts are kept turning to prevent “Brinelling” of the bearing surfaces where, if the heavy load is allowed to sit in the one position, the bearing balls leave a permanent indentation in the bearing race which of course ruins the bearing. Where the shaft has to be stopped from rotating additional measures are required to support the shaft and unload the bearing.

    70

    • #
      JoKAH

      Something happened -should have been following #10

      40

    • #
      Hanrahan

      That was true for Neptune wheel bearings if left standing at max TO weight. They had to be rolled but not being a framy I can’t say how often.

      20

  • #
    cedarhill

    Any word on whether they will be removed and who will pay for their removal and return the land to it’s original state (ref. strip mining).
    Or will they become historic landmark relics that must be preserved for future generations to worship?

    80

    • #
      yarpos

      standby for lots of rationales for why it cant be done, like the wave/tidal power unit sitting in the water off wollongong. I beleive they dont actually do a full restoration, most of the foundations is left in the ground.

      20

  • #
    Steve richards

    Wrt bearings and rotating windmill when there is no wind, this is the reason why large wind generators have emergency diesel generators installed – if the grid connection is lost you still need power for the control system to run the turning gear,power the azimuth motor to steer it, apply the over speed brakes, keep cooling and heating systems running and keep oil pressures up. Otherwise a local or distant grid fault can write off your wind generators…..

    100

  • #
    pat

    9 May: Bloomberg: Smarter Wind Turbines Try to Squeeze More Power on Each Rotation
    By Jim Efstathiou Jr and Brian K Sullivan
    Makers of giant wind turbines are hoping that artificial intelligence can bring back some of the industry’s mojo.
    While developers have spent $1.1 trillion on new wind farms over the past dozen years — helping transform the global energy landscape with renewable power — more money is going into new solar systems these days. Also, governments are phasing out subsidies, including programs in the U.S. that have offered $22 billion in tax breaks to turbine projects in the past 15 years…

    To remain an attractive, lower-cost option for utilities, companies like Vestas Wind Systems A/S and Invenergy LLC are investing in technologies to squeeze more electricity from every propeller rotation. That’s no easy task. Modern turbines with blades that stretch 450 feet (137 meters) in the air already can twist and turn and spin faster or slower to adjust to ever-changing breezes. And they’re covered with sensors and control systems to make adjustments quickly.

    But many still aren’t able to fully exploit weather and operational data in real time. For example, on wind farms with hundreds of turbines, the front wall of propellers creates a wake that reduces the efficiency for those behind. Making each unit more integrated with the rest could boost output as much as 15 percent, according WindWISDEM, an wind-industry software startup funded by venture capital firm YStrategies Corp.

    “A machine — instead of only relying on the wind speed and direction sensors on its own nacelle — could learn the wind speed and direction that’s going to hit it soon from the other machines,” said Paul Veers, chief engineer for the U.S. government’s National Wind Technology Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory…

    Utilities are demanding that sources of renewable energy deliver more dependable flows to transmission grids. So, the industry is trying to use data analysis to narrow the efficiency gap in existing systems and better predict how much power they can supply to consumers before it’s actually needed.
    “The grid likes certainly,” said Julia Attwood, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “If renewables can be more sure about their production, then that means they can supply more power because the grid operator can work that into their schedule for the day.”…

    Wind was the early king of renewable investments. But since 2010, solar projects have been getting the lion’s share, including $160.8 billion last year, second only to a record $179.3 billion in 2015 and almost half of what was spent on all clean-energy projects, according to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Wind turbines got $107.2 billion last year, down about 12 percent from 2016…

    Here’s how wind blades are getting smarter…READ ON FOR EXAMPLES

    Weather Forecasting
    Another way to boost output and reliability is better weather forecasting. Researchers at the Department of Energy and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are working with private partners to better understand wind at something called the boundary layer, which stretches from the ground to almost 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) high…

    Using artificial intelligence, forecasters hope to recreate atmospheric conditions in fine detail with the goal of forecasting the power output of wind farms, according to Kevin Petty, chief science officer at Vaisala Oyj, a Finland-based company specializing in environmental measurement…
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-09/smarter-wind-turbines-try-to-squeeze-more-power-on-each-rotation

    20

    • #
      robert rosicka

      They’d have to use artificial intelligence because none exists with this lot!

      30

    • #
      ivan

      Bloomberg got it wrong.

      They say “While developers have spent $1.1 trillion on new wind farms over the past dozen years”

      When it should be “While developers have spent $1.1 trillion of taxpayers money on new wind farms over the past dozen years

      10

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    All of this could have been known decades ago if there only had been a very simple back of an envelope calculation to check the validity of the idea. However, there would not have been the transfer of trillions of wealth from its producers to the green blob parasites. We watched and complained and attempted to use reason and science to counter the theft. Our politicians listen to the parasites and not us.

    What happened as a result is that the parasites of the world have gotten away with the largest theft by deception ever committed. It is so huge, the guilty neither can nor will pay for the theft. However, the theft will collapse of its own weight. It will be paid for by the impoverishment of everyone on earth. Sadly, the payment is in process.

    Why have we allowed this to happen?

    Were we too busy trying to live and make a living to bother about politics?

    Are we the frogs in a slowly heating pot of water not noticing their approaching doom?

    Can we avoid the approaching ugliness?

    No matter what, there is going to be a lot of pain and anguish.

    The best outcome I can see is that the world, being bankrupt, will zero out their collective debts, the investors in the debt will have to eat their losses, and we reboot the industrial/technological revolution. The only remaining question is when this will be done: in the near future or after a 10,000 year dark ages?

    51

  • #

    Takes a lot of cement to keep that giant tower, with its giant
    nacelle the size of a bus and its lo-o-o-ng arms, fixed in the ground.

    ‘Pictures from the energy companies show slim towers rising cleanly
    from the landscape or hovering faintly in the distant haze, their
    presence modulated by soft clouds behind them. But a 200- to 300-
    foot tower supporting a turbine housing the size of a bus and three
    100- to 150-foot rotor blades sweeping over an acre of air at more
    than 100 mph requires, for a start, a large and solid foundation.
    On a GE 1.5-MW tower, the turbine housing, or nacelle, weighs over
    56 tons, the blade assembly weighs over 36 tons, and the whole tower
    assembly totals over 163 tons.

    FPL (Florida Power & Light) Energy says, “a typical turbine site
    takes about a 42×42-foot-square graveled area.” Each tower(and a
    site needs at least 15-20 towers to make investment worthwhile)
    requires a huge hole filled with tons of steel rebar–reinforced
    concrete (e.g., 1,250 tons in each foundation at the facility in
    Lamar, Colo.). According to Country Guardian, the hole is large
    enough to fit three double-decker buses. At the 89-turbine Top of
    Iowa facility, the foundation of each 323-foot assembly is a 7-
    feet-deep 42-feet-diameter octagon filled with 25,713 pounds of
    re-inforced steel and 181 cubic yards of concrete. The foundations
    at the Wild Horse project in Washington are 30 feet deep. At
    Buffalo Mountain in Tennessee, too, each foundation is at least 30
    feet deep and may contain more than 3,500 cubic yards of concrete
    (production of which is a major source of CO2). On Cefn Croes in
    Wales the developer built a complete concrete factory on the site,
    which is not unusual, as well as opened quarries to provide rock
    for new roads — neither of which activities were part of the
    original planning application.’Eric Rosenbloom. ‘A Problem with
    Wind Power.’

    130

    • #
      WXcycles

      So basically, they’d fail any no-BSing EIS, and not get building approval? Let alone s no-BSing economic analysis for go, no-go, investment? Yet they get installed, lauded and treasured, for no valid reason? And no one figures this out in 20 years or so?

      The “clever country”.

      50

      • #
        WXcycles

        “The clever country” political slogan came from Labor PM Bob Hawk, and soon to become PM, Paul Keating, in 1990.

        28 years ago.

        40

    • #
      PeterS

      The Greenies don’t have a problem with all that construction material and effort destroying the environment on a mass scale? They must be mentally stunted to the extreme.

      60

      • #
        yarpos

        A highly selective world view, unimpeded by facts and rationality, is their speciality.

        30

  • #
    pat

    7 May: HuffPo: Switching To Renewables Will Save Millions Of American Lives
    by Deb Haaland
    Now is the time for America to go 100 percent renewable; that means we can be powered completely by wind, water and sunlight. There is no justifiable reason why our electricity, heating and cooling and transportation needs aren’t powered by 100 percent renewable energy. It’s doable, and every market sign is pointing in that direction…
    The Pentagon has long understood that climate change is a serious security threat ― in fact, it is a “threat multiplier” ― and it’s time for Congress to understand that as well…

    9 May: PostBulletin: Offshore wind farms coming to California — but the Navy says no to large sections of the coast
    By Rob Nikolewski The San Diego Union-Tribune
    But a map released by the U.S. Navy puts large swaths of the state off limits to future offshore wind farms — including all of San Diego and Los Angeles, extending up to the Central Coast…

    Resistance from the military
    The Department of Defense (DOD) was asked to provide its assessment of the California coast. Last summer the Navy released a map, using the colors of a traffic light — green for no restrictions, yellow for site-specific stipulations and red for what it called “wind exclusion” where the military wanted no wind farms at all.
    Blue areas were coded for sites designated as National Marine Sanctuaries.
    The red “no-go” areas covered all of Southern California — from the southern tip of the Mexican border, extending through San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and going all the way to Big Sur. The area included the Central Coast — site of the potential Morro Bay projects.
    The only areas colored green were located north of Mendocino.

    The Navy said the red areas should be off limits to wind projects because they would conflict with “the requirements of Navy and Marine Corps missions conducted in the air, on the surface, and below the surface of these waters.”
    The map was updated in February and became more restricted. All the green areas turned yellow…

    A small community power authority in Humboldt County is in position to become the first to establish a floating wind farm in the country…
    Last month, the group formed a consortium to erect a 100 to 150-megawatt wind farm of between 12 to 15 turbines more than 20 miles off the coast of Eureka. The turbines, Biondini said, will be 700 to 900 feet tall. The project is expected to go online in 2024 or 2025…
    Average wind speeds off the Humboldt County coast exceed 10 meters per second, or 22 mph…

    The Navy’s updated map changed the coast of Humboldt County from green to yellow but the project is “still definitely workable,” Biondini said.
    Chung said the color was changed largely because the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) wanted more information about the turbines to make sure they don’t interfere with long-range radar…

    Chung defended the mapping.
    “Within the Department of Defense, one of our primary and core objectives is to maintain our military readiness and ensure our national security,” he said…
    http://www.postbulletin.com/news/business/offshore-wind-farms-coming-to-california-but-the-navy-says/article_da1464d9-d3fd-50b3-aaf6-d497353c8cf9.html

    71

  • #
    pat

    14 May: RenewEconomy: AC/DC: The unheralded debate in Australia’s future grid
    By David Leitch
    The Integrated System Plan being put together by the Australian Energy Market Operator will put a marker down about how Australia will go about organizing its generation future.
    It will effectively represent a challenge to all the vested interests in the current system because it will explicitly and implicitly become a formal document that models a very different electricity system to the existing thermal dominated model.

    No matter the form of regulation, the NEG, a specified renewables share, carbon tax (my favorite), EIS, CET, it’s the physical design and capacity of the system that will end up driving price.
    In this sense we have long seen the ISP as more important than the NEG. Transmission investment is a 5-8 year time frame, getting this right is AEMO’s No 1 task…

    In this note we focus on the possibility that there may be a significant advantage in a renewables centric grid to using DC for transmission as opposed to AC…

    We simply do not see how renewable energy zones [REZ] can be established without significant transmission investment and that a more efficient process than the RIT is required if these zones are to be established in a timely fashion…

    The plan had its genesis in the Finkel Report, recommendation 5.1. “to facilitate the efficient development and connection of renewable energy zones across the National Electricity Market”
    The concept has grown to include interconnected infrastructure and energy developments including transmission and generation…
    As renewable developers are quickly finding out, transmission issues can be the life and death of wind and PV farms…

    More importantly its been obvious for years, blindingly obvious but still the AEMC has turned its blind eye against it, that significant development of renewables is going to require transmission links that could never be easily justified under the existing RIT-T.
    Transmission takes 5-8 years to get built, even when everyone thinks it’s a good idea. And not everyone does think it’s a good idea…

    Nevertheless, my strong view, based on the success of the ERCOT investment in Texas and the obvious fact, to me, that lots of coal generation has to be replaced over the next 10-15 years makes it imperative that the ISP is a success.
    A strong transmission network provides security, flexibility and optionality. Easy access to transmission will incentivize otherwise marginal wind & pv projects to get the go-ahead…

    AEMO has published some scenarios and assumptions to be used in the plan, and has run a consultation process. Stakeholder submissions to the process have been received and AEMO has published a summary.
    The next step will be publication of Version 1.0 of the plan in June. After that the arguments will start…
    What we see as the key discussion that needs to be held is whether the new transmission should be AC or DC…

    Do yourself a favour and read the excellent Siemens paper (LINK). Of course, like every submission it talks its own book. In this case it’s a really good book…READ ON
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/ac-dc-unheralded-debate-australias-future-grid-93894/

    21

  • #

    Ho hum! 15 years old wind plant and just walk away, and:

    By 2020, 41% of the currently installed capacity in Germany will be over 15 years old, 44% in Spain, and 57% in Denmark.

    Playford in SouthAus – 50 years old when closed down

    Northern in SouthAus – Dynamited at 35 years.

    Hazelwood in Victoria – 53 years when closed down

    Liddell in NSW – 51 years old when proposed for closure.

    Only four coal fired power plants in Qld are 15 years or younger. Every other coal fired plant in Oz is older than 15 years.

    Wind plants 15 years and walk away.

    Coal fired plants. Nup! You must remediate the land back to pristine, and it is preferable you supply your own dynamite.

    To paraphrase the Pythons, as a coal fired plant operator might say to a wind plant operator ….. “I phart in your general direction.”

    Tony.

    241

  • #
    RAH

    Median age of all existing coal fired power stations in the US is over 50 years.
    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants
    The average being built in 1966.
    Still quite a few in operation that were built in the 1050s.

    50

  • #

    The answer was blowing in the wind years ago, to anyone with a few STEM cells..

    My thoughts on it back in 2016

    https://notonmywatch.com/?p=972

    60

  • #
  • #
    Doug Proctor

    When subsidies end, price-to-user stays the same. So coal/gas/nuclear should pick up profits as they replace wind. Unless the government keeps and surcharges. Which they will.

    40

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    On first read:
    How do you know when an industry is a lobster?

    My answer: When it stops moving and all the green is gone!

    Do I get a prize” Okay, never mind.

    90

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well, we have instituted the Burnt Cable Award for unreliable systems ( the inaugural winner being Tassies BassLink )
      So the Lobster Award has promise…

      30

  • #
    hunter

    The United States is playing theUK and Australia for fools:
    Selling wood pellets to the UK, and exporting our loser cloimate con-artists to Australia.
    Thanks, suckahs!
    /sarc off

    90

  • #
    Robber

    Let’s run a hypothetical. Assume a grid is to be supplied on average 1/3 wind, 1/3 gas and 1/3 coal, with peak demand similar to Sth Australia of 3,000 MW, average demand 1,500 MW.
    For wind to supply 1/3 on average, that is 500 MW, nameplate capacity needs to be 1,500 MW assuming a generous 33% capacity factor. Gas is to supply 500 MW on average, and same for coal, 500 MW.
    But to maintain supply when the wind doesn’t blow, coal/gas need to be ready to supply peak demand of 3,000 MW plus some contingency for scheduled and unscheduled downtime. So let’s add 20%, so coal and gas generation capacity required are each 1800 MW, but on average they will only deliver 500 MW each, capacity factor 28%.
    Total investment 1,500 MW wind, 1,800 MW gas, 1,800 MW coal.

    Now let’s compare that without wind. To meet peak demand of 3,000 MW requires the same 3,600 MW of capacity allowing for 20% contingency, 1,800 MW gas, and 1,800 MW coal, and on average they will run to met average demand of 1,500 MW, a capacity factor of 42%.

    Notice something odd? Despite adding 1,500 MW of wind generators at an estimated capital cost of $1.6 billion (based on Ararat, $450 million for 420 MW nameplate), the same amount still needs to be invested in coal/gas to provide 3,600 MW of capacity. The only saving is that instead of delivering 1,500 MW on average, they will only deliver 1,000 MW, so less variable costs for fuel and other operating costs.

    Intermittent wind will lower our electricity bills? Tell ‘em they’re dreaming!

    190

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Robber:

      Thank you. Very clearly put.

      50

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Maths doesnt lie….

      This whole renewables train wreck will end in tears….

      40

      • #
        PeterS

        Yes but the culprits will still be laughing all the way to the bank, literally with our money. If only enough people understood how much they are being conned. Oh well, at least a crash and burn scenario should do that. I hate to live in an environment where people never woke up to reality. The depressing environment depicted in the novel 1984 would be one way to have a glimpse of how bad things would get.

        30

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I like to explain to people while in a pub how th ewhole scam works…most times people go quiet once they realize they have been done.

          Funnily enough, its the rank and file people who get the angiest….

          10

    • #
      PeterF

      But you would not build 1,800 MW of coal because it costs 2-4 times as much as gas to build. You would not build any coal at all in SA because it is too expensive and too inflexible. You would build about 1,200 MW of combined cycle gas and 1,900 MW of reciprocating plants. On windy days you would run the CC gas and wind and still have some left over for exports. On still overcast days you would run a little bit of wind and most of the gas plants. On an average day where wind would actually produce closer to 40% In fact new wind turbines are closer to 50% but anyway using 40% wind that would mean production is 600 MW of wind and say 800MW from CC gas and 100MW from the reciprocating plants so you are paying for 900 MW worth of fuel not 1500 MW worth

      25

      • #
        Robber

        PeterF, my point remains, whether coal or gas, you still need the same investment in coal/gas plants to provide capacity for when the wind doesn’t blow. Therefore overall investment is up. Agree you save some incremental gas, but the biggest cost is the writeoff of the additional capital investment. No exports as in my example I have assumed that 1500 MW average, peak 3,000 MW is the total grid – it could be scaled up to the AEMO grid and the same conclusion applies – if 33% of average demand is going to be supplied by wind, you still need the same coal/gas capacity as you had without any wind investment.

        60

        • #
          PeterF

          But gas is much cheaper than coal. Low grade coal requires bigger boilers and bigger coal handling systems so there would be not much change out of $4m/MW for a new coal plant in SA. Reciprocating gas plants are $1.2-1.4m/MW. they can go from zero to full power in 5 minutes, they can operate safely at 1-2% of maximum output and they can be turned off quickly if prices fall due to excess wind.
          At realistic prices 1,800 MW of coal would cost $7b, 1,800 MW of OC gas $2b total investment $9b plus a few hundred million in coal mine and rail upgrades. The coal would run at about 70% CF av 1260 MW leaving the gas to run at 13%. The operating and fuel costs for the coal would be about $40-50/MWh i.e. $440-550m/yr for the gas about $100/MWh or $210 m per year. Capital repayments, interest and depreciation over 45 years on $9b is $740m total cost $1.4-1.5b per year.
          Alternatively if you have 2,000 MW of wind @ 40%* CF, 1,000 MW of tracking solar at 28%, 600 MW of pumped hydro and 400 MW of batteries and 2,000 MW of reciprocating gas. wind is sometimes almost zero in the middle of the day but peak demand occurs later in the afternoon where wind + solar would supply at least 300 MW, storage 900 MW, gas 1,800MW for 3,000 MW generation + reserves. Total investment would be about $8.5bn a bit less than the coal + gas system. there would be no large generators that need spinning reserves and the annual costs would be about $260m. Batteries might last 12 years pumped hydro 100, wind turbines 25 and gas 45 so average life of investment will be about 35 years but interest rates would be lower so annual finance cost would be around $650m and gas costs about $300m. Total annual cost of hybrid gas/renewables/storage system $1.2b. i.e. about 20% cheaper than coal/gas
          * new generation wind farms are reaching 48%

          38

          • #
            robert rosicka

            Gas is for cooking and heating not powering electricity, coal is king and modern nuclear is the ideal as for costs you don’t really address the supply issue .
            Coal is generally supplied to the generator onsite but I’m yet to find a gas plant that wasn’t relying on a pipeline that comes from god knows where .
            Factor this in and reliability of supply and coal or nuke are the only options available until someone comes up with Warp drive technology or a Naquata generator .

            52

            • #
              PeterF

              The coal in SA is a long way from the demand that is why i said no-one would build new coal in SA.
              As for Lithgow Council, when it is prepared to put up 10 or 20% of the cost to build the coal power plant from their ratepayers money we might take them seriously

              00

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘But gas is much cheaper than coal.’

            What if the coal mine is just up the road?

            https://www.lithgowmercury.com.au/story/5377377/lithgow-council-to-kick-a-bit-of-arse-for-coal-power/

            30

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            PeterF:

            Didn’t I read you in The Australian comments section making up figures?
            A realistic price for a 1.8GW HELE power station is $A5 billion. Given an equal playing field these operate between 85 & 90% CF, and in emergency could operate at 100% for 12 months. And they last many years longer.
            And who is to say a power station in SA has to run on local coal? Why not revert to the practice of the 1940′s and import coal from NSW? At least coal fired is later technology than relying on wind.
            Gas is not cheaper to run than coal, and that’s for CCGTs. OCGTs have a CF around 6-15% as they have big maintenance problems. They are also far less efficient than CCGTs so put out more emissions and cost more to run than CCGTs (and wind turbines). Reciprocating engines are basically gas fire diesel (start up on diesel and switch to cleaner gas) which runs more efficiently at higher temperatures hence more NOx emissions.
            And if turbines were operating at 85% of the BETZ Limit how the hell can they increase their output by 44% let alone 77% as you claim. (SA turbines running at 27% CF).
            And you don’t seem to have costed the pumped storage nor the batteries necessary to make your “cheap alternative” actually competitive.
            “Peaker investment is now focused on gas-fired technologies, particularly distribution connected reciprocating engines. These units represent a relatively cheap source of LOW LOAD FACTOR flexibility. However there are a number of different types of technology in play and an important TRADE-OFF BETWEEN COST & EFFICIENCY.
            (I’ll translate that for you – cheap to build, lower efficiency = higher costs & emissions, and shorter life).

            “Gas engines have a capital cost advantage over CCGTs (400-450 $/kW vs 650-700 $/kW). Fixed costs of CCGTs (around 25 $/kW) can be more than 50% higher than those of gas engines. Engines are significantly more flexible than CCGTs and have lower start costs. PEAKER ECONOMIC LIVES ARE ALSO SHORTER THAN FOR CCGTS (e.g. 15 vs 25 years)”

            Try reading https://www.timera-energy.com/investment-in-flexibility-gas-peakers/

            Efficiencies of OCGTs are around 35%, reciprocating engines might get near that, latest CCGTs 60-62%. Which uses more fuel for the same electricity output?

            60

            • #
              PeterF

              Graeme almost zero coal plants on earth operate at 80-85% capacity factor because demand varies summer to winter,night to day. In the US for example even though they have closed 260 coal generators and half a dozen nuclear plants the remaining coal plants operate at an annual average 53% of capacity. In India the average is 58%, in Germany 53% in China 47%.

              As for cost you confuse the price paid to the prime contractor with the total cost of the plant including planning and permitting, capital raising, construction finance, grid connection, civil works coal transport and handling. The complete cost of a new stand alone coal plant in SA with all those other cost will be about A$3.5-4 m/MW, possibly as low as $3m using high quality imported coal

              To import coal to SA from NSW would add $8-12 to the cost of the coal and they would be competing will exports at US$65/ tonne for 23 MJ/kg or US$105/tonne for 28 MJ. While new USC plants get 44-46% at full load in cool conditions, their efficiency drops below 40% on hot days and below 35% on hot days at part load. Therefore lifetime efficiency in SA will struggle to reach 37%. Using that figure the fuel cost will be A$ 90/MWh.

              Nowhere in my proposed mix did I suggest OCGT’s so we can ignore that.

              Wind turbines become more effective 1. because they are on taller towers. The common height for wind turbine towers used to be about 80m, now they are going up to about 140m in Australia and 160m in other countries. the rate varies significantly but typically wind speed increases by about 0.5- 1% per m so the average wind speed at 140 m can be 30-60% higher than at 80m. The power varies as the cube of the speed so the same turbine at low wind speeds can be be producing 8 times the power. 2. Typical 3 MW class wind turbines used to have 90m diameter rotors, many of them now have 136 m diameter and larger,this means that they generate 2.3 times as much power at the same wind speed and also that they start generating at lower wind speeds. That is why the latest wind farms are seeing 48% capacity factors. The turbines installed in Australia now are already being superseded by new models that are being ordered now for delivery in 2019-20 so those wind farms in good sites will meet or exceed 50% Capacity factors.

              The base load in SA is about 800 MW peak is about 3,000 so once generation exceeds 800 MW there will be times when the CC gas plants will be operating below rated output. Once they drop below about 55% they drop back to OC mode so then all you have is a very expensive OC plant. Thus once CC generation reaches 1,200 MW capacity further investment in CC becomes difficult to justify.
              When the comparison is between OC and reciprocating, reciprocating usually wins except where speed of deployment and transportability is a consideration because reciprocating plants use about 20% less gas, even less at high ambients. That is why AGL has chosen reciprocating plants for its new plants in SA and NSW

              The costing included all the batteries and pumped hydro.

              There are no made up numbers here just facts. I know that it is hard to believe that technology has advanced and costs have fallen. I used to be a fan of CCGT, I think the modern plants are wonderful machines. I even like USC coal plants. Unfortunately in Australia the economics no longer stack up

              00

          • #
            yarpos

            you really missed the hypothetical in the intro didnt you? he was explaining the impact of renewables and quite well I thought, not arguing the virtues of coal vs gas.

            20

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              yarpos:

              My second reply was to PeterF, and he was assuming that wind turbines were essential whereas Robber was explaining that they were an extra that added nothing except cost.

              10

    • #
      DAW

      That’s all beaut theoretically but as Terry McCrann (journo ) said recently:-
      When the wind don’t blow
      And the sun don’t shine
      The power don’t flow.
      So if you build 10 times as much wind capacity as that needed, then when the wind don’t blow, 10 x 0 = 0.
      So no power.

      50

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Brown coal in SA is worthwhile just not to the ideology of the present CAGW crowd , we’ve already seen the figures to back it up and as for new plants they wouldn’t need new ones if they didn’t blow up the old ones would they .
        Brown or black makes no difference in reality unless you believe in the tooth fairy and unicorns .

        10

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    Where are our resident trolls?

    Why is it that the regulars post multiple posts each thread, but the trolls who are so critical of us turn up once every two weeks, usually in a particular topic thread?

    I’ve noted already that they don’t read the thread, they just post and then respond to comments under their post. And I don’t believe they read or understand what the comments were, they simply react. Well, that’s my experience anyway.

    Good one Jo! You’ve once again upset me no end with that previous thread. My God our politicians are idiots. Every day I get more disgusted in them.

    PS: I havn’t watched TV for over 10 years now. I stopped watching when I would swear and throw things at the news. Now I just enjoy my time by not watching “who murdered who this week”. /Cheers all

    90

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Greg:
      They are rostered on, but their numbers are limited and growing smaller. They seem to have directed their spleen more towards the comments section in The Australian judging by the repeated multiple posts. For all that there are only a few of them making repeated waffle as if making noise would persuade casual readers that they are a significant minority. Possibly the trolls are terrified of too losing publicity as the SMH and The Guardian sink into bankruptcy.
      I notice that Graham Lloyd is often ‘hidden’ away to prevent bombardment. He’s easy to find but the trolls have to be spoon fed. They tried hard when he was new to get rid of him but the Editor wouldn’t listen. Say what you like about Rupert Murdoch but his papers are tuned to the public attitudes, not trying to push a failed agenda. And the paper is getting more sceptical about renewables.

      110

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        The trolls? Well work experience rounds havent started yet, and school holidays are over, so….

        50

      • #
        PeterS

        If it is true the papers are getting more skeptical about renewables then I hope one of the two major parties is listening and soon change their energy policies. If they promise to scrap all renewables incentives and the Paris agreement I will be very pleased. Of course I won’t hold my breadth. More likley we will have to endure a many more years of their deceptive and suicidal policies.

        40

        • #
          el gordo

          … and the electorate is becoming disillusioned with the majors.

          ‘Angry voters are turning their backs on the two major political parties in a powerful trend that could help decide the next election, according to new research on the issues driving a growing group of disaffected Australians.’

          SMH

          40

          • #
            PeterS

            The next election will be very revealing. If much of the electorate is indeed disillusioned with the two major parties then we should see one or two of the minor parties together gain enough support to hold the balance of power. Otherwise, the public are too cowardly and/or still asleep and will have to endure more pain.

            20

      • #
        PeterF

        More sceptical about renewables? when they published articles years ago saying that the RET target could not possibly be met or that steel could not be made in electric arc furnaces or by Judith Sloan that could not differentiate between a closed circuit (television) and a Combined Cycle gas plant. How could they be more sceptical
        However their scepticism has not prevented investors building more wind farms and solar farms ( 5 connected to the grid this month) and the people installing more solar in the last year than ever before.
        Did you know that while wind and solar are increasing power prices are falling as well as the subsidies. The average wholesale price in Victoria and SA in March April May to date is 35% lower than last year

        28

        • #
          Stephen

          Always good to see a reduction in the wholesale price in SA of 35%.

          I would however like to point out that last years wholesale price was 76% higher than the year before.

          10

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘The average wholesale price in Victoria and SA in March April May to date is 35% lower than last year.’

          It appears Turnbull has got something right for a change.

          ‘Wholesale prices in futures contracts for 2018 have fallen by about 20 per cent in South Australia and Victoria since their peaks in May last year, to $103 and $93 per MWh respectively.

          ‘Mr Frydenberg said the drop in contract prices could be attributed to “record” investment in new generation and more local gas supply following the ­federal government intervention in the gas market. The analysis claimed there was a 60 per cent drop in the wholesale electricity price in Queensland over the ­recent summer compared with a year earlier because the federal government “pressured” the Palaszczuk government to stop uncompetitive bidding practices by state-owned generators.

          ‘The futures contracts have lower wholesale prices in 2019 for NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria, according to the government analysis.’

          The Oz

          40

          • #
            Robber

            Average wholesale prices for the last three financial years 2016/17/18 per AEMO:
            NSW 52; 81; 80 $/Mwhr
            Qld 60; 93; 72
            SA 62; 109; 97
            Tas 103; 75; 89
            Vic 46; 67; 92
            Hardly a trend to be proud of. And then add network costs that nobody seems to talk about or publish much data on a regular basis.
            The ACCC in a preliminary report provided the following estimated breakdown of the average household electricity bill:
            2007/8; 2016/7
            Wholesale $441; $530 (up 20%)
            Network $494; $702 (up 42%)
            Green $19; $103 (up 440%)
            Retail $223: $356 (up 60%)
            Total $1177; $1691 (up 44%)

            They also reported average commercial/industrial prices were up 53%.
            The ACCC’s final report is due to the Treasurer by 30 June 2018.

            40

    • #
      yarpos

      Some red thumbs at least people, come on! I wear them as little badges of honour.

      10

  • #
    Ross

    Graeme & Greg

    I’m convinced many of the trolls were paid. They seem to have been given a particular site or newspaper (online) to attack, were fed the narrative and backup “data” for a particular topic and told to go for it –the “cheque will be in the mail”.
    They will disappear from a site and appear on another a few weeks later, at about the time a replacement for the original site appears but like Greg I have notice many sites are almost “troll free” now. Maybe the money is drying up.

    40

    • #
      PeterS

      The ABC will have plenty of people who can spend all the time they like to troll at taxpayers expense. Perhaps they feel it’s not worth the effort and prefer focus on researching and making fake stories for broadcasting instead. I’m pretty sure the ABC audience is much larger than Jo’s, unfortunately.

      30

  • #
    pat

    terrible news. developing countries expanding trade:

    14 May: CarbonPulse: CO2 emissions from burgeoning ‘South-South’ trade may threaten climate goals -study
    The growth in trade between developing countries in the first decade of the 21st century, fuelled by the offshoring of manufacturing to lower-wage economies, has led to a surge in emissions that threatens the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, according to a study released on Monday.

    14 May: ScienceDaily: New phase of globalization could undermine efforts to reduce CO2 emissions
    Source: University of East Anglia
    New research reveals the growth of carbon production from Chinese exports has slowed or reversed, reflecting a ‘new phase of globalization’ between developing countries that could undermine international efforts to reduce emissions.
    The study found that trade among developing nations — known as South-South trade — more than doubled between 2004 and 2011…

    The study, involving researchers from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and colleagues in China and the United States, investigated how complex supply chains are distributing energy-intensive industries and their CO2 emissions throughout the global South. It found that trade among developing nations — known as South-South trade — more than doubled between 2004 and 2011…

    International trade increased by more than 50% from 2005 to 2015, with approximately 60% of the increase tied to rising exports from developing countries. Yet over the same period, South-South trade grew even faster — more than tripling — to reach 57% of all developing country exports (US$9.3 trillion) in 2014.

    Publishing their findings in Nature Communications, the authors warn this trend may seriously undermine international efforts to reduce global emissions that increasingly rely on rallying voluntary contributions of more, smaller, and less-developed nations…READ ON
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180514083942.htm

    20

    • #
      pat

      ah, the sheer arrogance:

      14 May: China, India outsource emissions, risking climate goal – study
      Reporting by Michael Taylor, Editing by Megan Rowling
      KUALA LUMPUR (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – A rising tide of industries moving operations from China and India to less-developed Asian countries undermines global targets to reduce climate-changing emissions, researchers said.

      Many energy-intensive industries, including manufacturing and raw materials processing, are relocating to cheaper countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand, a study by Britain’s University of East Anglia (UEA) showed on Monday.

      “The Chinese production system is starting to transform to be more higher value-added,” said Dabo Guan, professor of climate change economics at UEA and a co-author of the report.
      “The price of labor in China has increased quite a lot,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation…
      The shifts in production and trade will make it harder to meet the Paris Agreement goal of cutting emissions enough to keep the rise in global average temperatures to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) above pre-industrial times, Guan said…

      ***China and India should help ensure power-efficient technologies and methods are adopted by industries that move off-shore to less-developed countries, he added…

      Shoppers in the United States and Europe must also be educated to become more sustainable consumers, said Guan.
      Fast fashion and buying more than one car are examples of consumer practices that need to change, he said, warning such habits are being copied by rich Chinese and Indians.

      “We only have one planet, unless we move to Mars,” Guan said. “If all the 7 billion people in the world consumed like Americans, we would need seven or eight planets.”
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-trade-climatechange/china-india-outsource-emissions-risking-climate-goal-study-idUSKCN1IF1HS

      40

      • #
        pat

        Ward good for a laugh, as usual:

        14 May: Wired: China is going green, but dirty trade is moving elsewhere
        China’s export economy is getting greener, but a new phase of globalisation means other developing nations are burning more fossil
        by Lee Williams
        Instead, more carbon-intensive manufacturing processes have been moved to poorer countries with less-developed energy technologies.
        “These countries are more reliant on coal,” says Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. Coal is the biggest problem, he adds, because of all the fossil fuels it is coal that produces the most CO2 per unit of electricity generated.

        China reached a peak in coal consumption around 2012, says Guan, and has reduced its coal use significantly in the past few years. But coal’s cheapness and efficiency make it the easy choice for poorer countries. To tackle the problem, Guan believes China needs to take the lead as a router of new energy-efficient technologies to the developing world.

        Ward agrees, pointing to China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ for investing in strategically-important nations. China “can make the case that countries in which [it’s] investing should be seeking to develop low-carbon energy systems,” he says. And that the investments it’s going to make “should be in sustainable infrastructure”.

        The developed world should also play a role, Ward adds – by using development banks like the World Bank to invest only in sustainable energy in poorer countries. “There should be no development banks providing money to countries to build coal-fired power stations,” he says. “It just can’t be justified.”

        But we can’t just tell nations to switch off coal, thinks Guan. Instead, we should focus on tackling the extremely dirty minority of coal power stations, providing technology to help mitigate their impact. He points to India, where just a few ultra-dirty coal-fired power plants produce a disproportionate amount of the country’s emissions and air pollution.

        “We need to identify the super-pollutants,” says Guan. “If we get rid of five per cent of the dirtiest power plants, the emissions will reduce by 30 per cent. If we can do this, then we should be fine.”
        http://www.wired.co.uk/article/climate-change-news-china-globalisation-global-warming-economics-trade

        40

        • #
          pat

          ***UEA’s Dabo Guan: “Successfully mitigating climate change therefore urgently depends on decarbonising not only energy systems in developed countries but also the entire process of industrialization.”…

          14 May: EurekaAlert: Public Release: New phase of globalization could undermine efforts to reduce CO2 emissions
          Source: University of East Anglia
          It follows research published last month in Geophysical Research Letters, in which the authors argue that the Chinese export-embodied CO2 emissions have peaked due to the changing structure of Chinese production…

          Co-author on both studies Dabo Guan, professor in climate change economics at UEA’s School of International Development: …”The success of international climate mitigation efforts may therefore depend on curtailing growth of coal-based energy and emissions in now-industrialising and urbanising countries. Otherwise, countries like China and India may meet their nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement by hollowing out low-value, energy-intensive manufacturing, and offshoring those activities to emerging markets elsewhere in Asia with less stringent climate policy measures.

          ***”Successfully mitigating climate change therefore urgently depends on decarbonising not only energy systems in developed countries but also the entire process of industrialization.”…
          https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/uoea-npo051018.php

          UEA: Professor Dabo Guan, Professor in Climate Change Economics, School of International Development
          Professor Dabo Guan works for School of International Development, University of East Anglia from October 2014. He is also a senior member of St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge. He specialises in environmental economics for international climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, scenario analysis on environmental impacts, water resources accounting and management, input-output modelling and their applications in both developed and developing countries. He was a Lead Author for the Working Group III of the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Chapter 14 on Regional Development and Cooperation. He has authored over 50 publications, including articles published Science, Nature, Nature Climate Change, Science and PNAS.
          He has received Leontief Prize 3 times and recently award for the Philip Leverhulme Prize (to award to outstanding scholars who have made a substantial and recognised contribution to their particular field of study, recognised at an international level).

          Dabo Guan was a Senior Lecturer at University of Leeds for 3 years and formerly a Senior Research Associate at Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy and a Research Associate at Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.

          ***Earlier, he worked for World Wide Fund (WWF) as an Economist. For more details, please visit Dabo’s homepage (LINK)
          https://www.uea.ac.uk/devresearch/people/profile/dabo-guan

          60

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘And that the investments it’s going to make “should be in sustainable infrastructure”.

          Like coal fired plants with a life span of half a century, renewables don’t make the cut.

          60

  • #
    pat

    short and not punchy enough for me, but at least it’s something!

    Judith Curry interview re STUDY: Impact of CO2 on climate exaggerated; MSM not covering it; policy-makers ignoring it:

    begins at 29mins07secs

    Youtube: Tucker Carlson: Fox News Today May 14, 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-AUw-iBe2E

    80

  • #
    pat

    lol:

    13 May: The Observer: Peers to rebel over ‘toothless’ post-Brexit green watchdog
    Former ministers condemn new body’s lack of power for legal action against government
    by Michael Savage and James Tapper
    A former Tory cabinet minister is backing efforts to force through tough green laws after Brexit, amid anger over plans that would weaken environmental protections once Britain leaves the European Union.

    Four former environment and climate change secretaries from three parties told the Observer they had concerns about “toothless” plans announced by the government last week, which suggested the new post-Brexit green watchdog would lack the power to take the government to court.
    Senior Tory MPs are also said to have concerns about the move. It comes after a row over post-Brexit green laws between Michael Gove, the environment secretary, and the chancellor, Philip Hammond.

    Gove, a leading Brexiter, has been keen for the new watchdog to have identical powers to those currently enjoyed by the European commission, which can fine governments that fail to meet their green obligations. However, the Treasury is said to have concerns about the impact on post-Brexit growth and construction

    A cross-party group of peers is planning a rebellion this week that would keep all the green protections currently in place, including the power to take legal action against the government.Among those backing the rebellion is John Gummer, now Lord Deben, the former Tory environment secretary and current chairman of the UK committee on climate change…
    Green groups immediately spoke out after Gove’s “Green Brexit” consultation, published last week, contained no commitment to give the new watchdog power to initiate legal action…

    The Lib Dem MP Ed Davey, who served as climate change secretary under the coalition government, said the post-Brexit plans would leave Britain with “a weaker environmental regime than Trump’s America”…
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/12/peers-to-rebel-over-toothless-environment-watchdog-brexit

    20

  • #
    pat

    14 May: Guardian: Gas boom fuels Australia’s third straight year of rising emissions
    LNG was major contributor to 1.5% rise in year to December 2017, government data shows
    by Lisa Cox
    Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to soar, increasing for the third consecutive year according to new data published by the Department of Environment and Energy…
    The expansion in LNG exports and production is identified as the major contributor to the increase, but the data shows a jump in emissions across all sectors – including waste, agriculture and transport – except for electricity, the one area that recorded a decrease in emissions…

    In particular, the department’s data shows a 10.5% increase in fugitive emissions from the production, processing, transport, storage, transmission and distribution of fossil fuels such as coal, crude oil and natural gas, driven by an increase of 17.6% in natural gas production…

    It comes at a time when the government has been pressuring states and territories to lift bans on fracking for new unconventional gas development and just weeks after the Northern Territory announced it would end its ban on fracking.
    Publication of the data also comes after Australia recorded its hottest and driest April in 21 years…
    Between 2007 and 2013, under the previous federal government, carbon pollution declined by more than 11%…

    The Australian Conservation Foundation said on Monday it was embarrassing that a developed country such as Australia was recording rising climate pollution, and the Turnbull government was failing on climate policy…
    The organisation also questioned why the government was years behind markets such as the United States and Canada in the introduction of tougher pollution standards for vehicles…

    Blair Palese, 350.org Australia’s CEO, said “with numbers like these, Australia may as well not be signed up to Paris to act on climate because we’re making no progress at all.”…
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/14/gas-fuels-australias-third-straight-year-of-rising-emissions

    40

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Australia recorded its hottest and driest April in 21 years…’

      It may seem hard to believe, but that is a global cooling signal.

      ‘Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era.’

      RealClimateMarkets

      60

      • #
        PeterS

        Only 21 years? Anyone with an ounce of brain matter would understand that’s irrelevant. All it actually means on its own is 21 years ago it was hotter and it has been cooling ever since. Woops! CAGW exposed yet again.

        50

  • #
    David Maddison

    I compiled this list of videos of windmills being demolished. Now imagine if a single day was selected and every wind subsidy farm in the world was demolished like this on one day!

    https://youtu.be/6zSNgmBNcFE
    https://youtu.be/hU5ZrDKWChk
    https://youtu.be/P9F-sAFEt1A
    https://youtu.be/wsVcA8vxI0g
    https://youtu.be/W7nCSGWMbtk
    https://youtu.be/sACzVwNENUA
    https://youtu.be/JDQOBM18XQw
    https://youtu.be/1-SiJ8ZR_ak

    20

  • #
    pat

    14 May: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: The rapidly disappearing subsidies for wind and solar in Australia
    One of the loudest, most controversial and misinformed debates around Australian energy policy has been the level of subsidies for wind and solar farms.
    It is mostly based around the renewable energy target and the market price of its principal pricing signal – the certificates known as LGCs, which have been trading at or above $80/MWh for some time.

    This has led to some outrageous claims about the amount of money that is supposedly being pocketed by renewable energy developers, such as the Saudi company that owns the Moree solar farm.
    Conservatives, and the Murdoch media in particular, continue to parade and parrot the false story and fake news that the renewable energy target will pocket some $45 billion of subsidies out to 2030.
    It’s nonsense. Such claims are based on the assumption that all LGCs attract the market price – currently around $80/MWh. But in reality only a small percentage of “merchant” generators do that…

    The price of LGCs is already showing signs of significant decline as it becomes clear that the RET – which seeks 33,000GWh of new renewables by 2030 – will not just be met, but could be significantly exceeded.
    That has pushed the future price of LGCs down sharply (see chart above, the yellow line at the bottom)…

    What is often forgotten in the tirades against wind and solar is that many project developers have already forgone any subsidies, because they have signed long-term contracts, known as PPAs (power purchase agreements), for between 12 and 15 years.

    Most of these contracts, particularly those signed in the last 12 months, provide effectively zero value to the LGCs. These include projects such as the 530MW Stockyard Hill wind farm, the 200MW Silverton wind farm, and the 470MW Cooper’s Gap wind farm.
    Those contracts – like most others for wind and solar farms – were signed with the realisation that the LGC market price was heading to zero, or negligible, value in the 2020s…

    This has also been the case for the ACT’s goal of sourcing the equivalent of 100 per cent renewables for its electricity by 2020. That program requires the LGCs to be surrendered at no cost to ensure the ACT’s efforts are additional to any national target.
    So far, the ACT has done well out of its contracts because the first two wind farms have actually been returning money to ACT consumers, rather than requiring a top up over the market price…

    So, why are the LGC’s at such a high price of $80/MWh when that level of subsidy is not needed, and renewable energy projects can be developed and operate at an all up price of $55-$70/MWh?
    Simply, it’s yet another example of where the incumbent utilities, in this case the retailers, are playing the market. Not illegally, but simply because the rules allow them to do so.

    The price is high because not enough renewable energy generation has been built to meet the progressively higher annual targets, creating a shortage of LGCs.
    This occurred because of the three-year investment strike that was caused by the Abbott government’s attempts – supported by many energy incumbents – to try to scrap, and then reduce the RET, from 41,000GWh to 33,000GWh…

    So, if renewables don’t need subsidies going forward, then what’s the problem?
    The problem is that without further incentives, or reasonable emissions reduction targets, the main energy retailers will have little or no reason to build new wind or solar, and will be happy to keep spinning maximum profits out of their fossil fuel generators.
    That leaves only the household and corporate market as potential parties to contracting new wind and solar farms, and additional demand created when coal generators are due to retire…READ ON
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-rapidly-disappearing-subsidies-for-wind-and-solar-in-australia-42300/

    20

    • #
      David Maddison

      The propaganda is relentless.

      20

    • #
      les

      ” … So, if renewables don’t need subsidies going forward, then what’s the problem? The problem is that without further incentives, or reasonable emissions reduction targets, the main energy retailers will have little or no reason to build new wind or solar, and will be happy to keep spinning maximum profits out of their fossil fuel generators. … ”
      ——-

      So, … if we don’t give them ‘incentives’ the price and temp will stay high (because we’re being ‘played’, by baddies), but if we do pay for more ‘incentives’, the price will go even higher again, but the planet will definitely get 2°C cooler?

      This sounds like a pretty amateurish sort of con-job attempt. Try harder jugheads.

      00

  • #
    pat

    14 May: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: The rapidly disappearing subsidies for wind and solar in Australia
    One of the loudest, most controversial and misinformed debates around Australian energy policy has been the level of subsidies for wind and solar farms.
    It is mostly based around the renewable energy target and the market price of its principal pricing signal – the certificates known as LGCs, which have been trading at or above $80/MWh for some time.

    This has led to some outrageous claims about the amount of money that is supposedly being pocketed by renewable energy developers, such as the Saudi company that owns the Moree solar farm.
    Conservatives, and the Murdoch media in particular, continue to parade and parrot the false story and fake news that the renewable energy target will pocket some $45 billion of subsidies out to 2030.
    It’s nonsense. Such claims are based on the assumption that all LGCs attract the market price – currently around $80/MWh. But in reality only a small percentage of “merchant” generators do that…

    The price of LGCs is already showing signs of significant decline as it becomes clear that the RET – which seeks 33,000GWh of new renewables by 2030 – will not just be met, but could be significantly exceeded.
    That has pushed the future price of LGCs down sharply (see chart above, the yellow line at the bottom)…

    What is often forgotten in the tirades against wind and solar is that many project developers have already forgone any subsidies, because they have signed long-term contracts, known as PPAs (power purchase agreements), for between 12 and 15 years.

    Most of these contracts, particularly those signed in the last 12 months, provide effectively zero value to the LGCs. These include projects such as the 530MW Stockyard Hill wind farm, the 200MW Silverton wind farm, and the 470MW Cooper’s Gap wind farm.
    Those contracts – like most others for wind and solar farms – were signed with the realisation that the LGC market price was heading to zero, or negligible, value in the 2020s…

    This has also been the case for the ACT’s goal of sourcing the equivalent of 100 per cent renewables for its electricity by 2020. That program requires the LGCs to be surrendered at no cost to ensure the ACT’s efforts are additional to any national target.
    So far, the ACT has done well out of its contracts because the first two wind farms have actually been returning money to ACT consumers, rather than requiring a top up over the market price…

    So, why are the LGC’s at such a high price of $80/MWh when that level of subsidy is not needed, and renewable energy projects can be developed and operate at an all up price of $55-$70/MWh?
    Simply, it’s yet another example of where the incumbent utilities, in this case the retailers, are playing the market. Not illegally, but simply because the rules allow them to do so.

    The price is high because not enough renewable energy generation has been built to meet the progressively higher annual targets, creating a shortage of LGCs.
    This occurred because of the three-year investment strike that was caused by the Abbott government’s attempts – supported by many energy incumbents – to try to scrap, and then reduce the RET, from 41,000GWh to 33,000GWh…

    So, if renewables don’t need subsidies going forward, then what’s the problem?
    The problem is that without further incentives, or reasonable emissions reduction targets, the main energy retailers will have little or no reason to build new wind or solar, and will be happy to keep spinning maximum profits out of their fossil fuel generators.
    That leaves only the household and corporate market as potential parties to contracting new wind and solar farms, and additional demand created when coal generators are due to retire…READ ON
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-rapidly-disappearing-subsidies-for-wind-and-solar-in-australia-42300/

    30

    • #
      David Maddison

      The propaganda is now relentless….

      30

    • #
      wal1957

      The problem is that without further incentives, or reasonable emissions reduction targets, the main energy retailers will have little or no reason to build new wind or solar, and will be happy to keep spinning maximum profits out of their fossil fuel generators.

      That sentence is not quite finished… it should read as follows…
      The problem is that without further incentives, or reasonable emissions reduction targets, the main energy retailers will have little or no reason to build new wind or solar, and will be happy to keep spinning maximum profits out of their fossil fuel generators, thus providing customers with cheaper energy costs.”

      30

  • #
    pat

    15 May: Newcastle Herald Op-ed: Renewables: taking care of business
    by Louis Brailsford
    (Louis Brailsford is a Climate Council energy advisor)
    More Australian businesses are making the switch to clean, affordable and reliable renewable energy than ever before. Businesses big and small are embracing renewables in record numbers, with commercial solar installations jumping 60 per cent over 2016 and 2017, according to SunWiz. The reason behind this solar surge? Skyrocketing electricity and energy costs. Many business decisions to invest in renewable energy have been driven by a need to escape the nation’s historically high power prices and to protect against future energy price hikes.

    Australia is home to exceptionally high electricity prices, driven up by massive over-investment in the poles and wires of the electricity network. High gas prices, a lack of competition and federal energy policy uncertainty have also played a role.

    But the availability of low-cost renewable energy, like solar and wind generation is turning the tide for business. After all, we live in one of the sunniest and windiest nations in the world…READ ON
    https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5399460/energy-that-really-takes-care-of-business/

    40

  • #
    • #
      David Maddison

      Follow up:

      ///How Does a Company Find an Ocean of Oil Under the Australian Desert, Then Go Bankrupt?
      In 2013 Linc Energy announced they’d found up to 233 billion barrels of black gold under Coober Pedy. Now their US investors are seeking bankruptcy protection.///

      https://www.vice.com/amp/en_au/article/wdaz85/link-energy-found-233-billion-barrels-of-oil-in-the-australian-desert-then-went-bust

      30

    • #
      David Maddison

      Australia probably does have huge oil and gas deposits yet to be found but vast areas are prohibited for exploration or drilling and fracking is banned in many areas.

      Just part of Australia’s self-destructive economic policies.

      70

      • #
        Dennis

        A relative who had grandparents on the land in the Roma District of Queensland told me that there are a number of oil wells capped there drilled by the old government owned Commonwealth Oil Refinery. They were installed in the early 1900s and capped because the Middle East oil was more competitive in terms of extraction and transportation to the market places.

        I am also aware of large shale oil and gas deposits near Lithgow in NSW, Newnes, where a small operation used to extract oil and transport via a railway line. The area is now a public access area. Queensland too has vast shale deposits and more in various locations, Western Australia too.

        Another that comes to mind is the news not many years ago of oil discovered off the Western Australia coast.

        40

        • #
          Dennis

          I agree, “just part of Australia’s self-destructive economic policies”.

          “Sustainability”, UN Agenda 30.

          50

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Vast area of the interior is being exploited for gas and oil , in and around the Simpson desert but all states around the boundaries have wells in this area .
        And also in WA as Dennis has said there are also wells inland and I’m sure I seen the word refinery mentioned on the map for the WA field and I’m positive I’ve also seen similar for a plant near Alice springs .
        Must check but seen massive storage tanks just north of Whyalla and I think they hold oil from the Moomba area .

        20

  • #
    pat

    8 May: WindPowerMonthly: Siemens Gamesa to refurbish Vestas gearboxes
    Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) will refurbish the gearboxes of the 60 Vestas turbines at the 120MW Princess Amalia project in the Netherlands as it extends its service business for multi-brand offshore wind turbines…
    SGRE will supply up to four ZF-EH804 gearboxes fully equipped with auxiliaries, with this initial exchange expected during the second quarter of 2018, the company stated.

    The removed gearboxes will then be fully refurbished before being replaced. SGRE’s repair team can refurbish up to four gearboxes in ten weeks, the manufacturer added.
    All of the work will be carried out in Spain, where SGRE has five manufacturing sites.
    The 120MW Princess Amalia wind farm, situated 23km off the coast of Ijmuiden in the Netherlands, was commissioned in 2008…
    https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1463998/siemens-gamesa-refurbish-vestas-gearboxes

    10

  • #
    PeterF

    Isn’t it strange that in spite of all these derelict windfarms wind generation keeps going up. Germany for example produced 52 TWh from wind in 2013. Already this year just over 1/3rd of they way through it has produced 46 TWh. In China in 2013 produced 138 TWh from wind in 2017 305 TWh (98 TWh in the first quarter of this year). In the US in 2013 they produced 167 TWh, last year 260 TWh. India 24 TWh to 52 in the same period. The UK 25 to 49 etc. It is obvious that wind is a declining technology. Then those frogs haven’t a clue either http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2018/01/france-announces-plan-aimed-at-doubling-wind-power-capacity.html.
    Just to put this into perspective the whole of Australia uses about 210 TWh so Germany in 1/20th of the area is already producing 60% of our annual power use from wind. The 48 states of the US is producing about 50% more power from wind than we use and China in a bit over 20% more area is producing about 80% more power than we use just from wind.

    15

  • #
    pat

    14 May: TotalTelecom: Britain’s £11bn smart meter initiative stymied by poor wireless network
    By Chris Kelly
    Britain’s utility providers are in an £11 billion race to install smart meters in every property in the country by 2020, but their efforts are being scuppered by inadequate wireless networks, according to a report in the Financial Times (LINK)…

    However, all smart meters are not created equally. First generation smart meters, known as Smet-1s tie a customer to a particular provider and cease to function if the customer decides to change supplier.
    Second generation meters, Smet-2s, can communicate between suppliers, and it is here that the problem arises. Such meters require a sophisticated wireless network to communicate effectively – the deployment of which has been subject to delays…

    The network is being deployed by the Data Communication Company. On its website, the firm said that it remains fully committed to helping the UK government roll out up to 53 million smart meters by the year 2020…
    It is estimated that Britain’s utility suppliers will have to install an average of 24 smart meters per minute, from now until 2020 to meet the governments ambitious target.

    If Britain is to reap the full benefits of smart metered utilities, it will be imperative that it invests sufficiently in the wireless networks that power them.
    https://www.totaltele.com/500061/Britains-11bn-smart-meter-initiative-stymied-by-poor-wireless-network

    1 May: Greenville News: ‘Shocking’ electricity bills spark concern about smart meters in the Upstate, but Duke says they’re accurate
    When Gena Marshbanks opened her February power bill, she got a high-voltage jolt of surprise. Her charges from Duke Energy had more than doubled, she said.
    Another Berea resident said her recent bill also more than doubled.
    A man in Pickens County, meanwhile, said his electricity charges had almost tripled…

    “They did a remote test and said there was nothing wrong with it,” David Marshbanks said. “It’s transmitting wirelessly how much power I use. But it went from $230 to over $500 in one month.
    “Three or four of my neighbors have got a roof full of solar panels and their power bills went up like mine did.”…

    Joshua Hart, founder of the California-based stopsmartmeters.org, said consumers across the nation have seen higher power bills because of the smart meters.
    “There’s been an increase in bills when smart meters are installed compared to the analog meters,” Hart said. “It has to do with a fundamentally different way of measuring electricity. The digital meters are picking up electronics and picking up other activity and billing people for it, which was never the practice before. Essentially, the utilities are reaping a lot of profit from this.”…

    “There are some cases where there is hundreds of dollars of increase, widely inflated bills, and people dispute them often to no avail,” Hart said. “There’s some evidence that the meters can be affected by high temperatures, sunlight and nearby cell towers.”…
    https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2018/04/30/shocking-electricity-bills-spark-concern-smart-meters-upstate-but-duke-says-theyre-accurate/554708002/

    14 May: BBC: British Gas owner Centrica loses another 110,000 accounts
    British Gas owner Centrica lost 110,000 energy supply accounts in the first four months of the year…

    Many of those used more energy during the spell of extreme cold weather earlier this year, which was branded the Beast from the East.
    Centrica said it had seen “increased energy demand” during that period. However, the weather also caused an “exceptionally” high number of boiler breakdowns
    In one week Centrica fixed 145,000 breakdowns – more than twice the normal weekly number…

    In April, British Gas announced a 5.5% increase in both gas and electricity bills, which comes into effect at the end of the this month.
    It blamed the rising wholesale cost of energy and the cost of meeting emissions targets and introducing smart meters…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-44106550

    20

  • #
    pat

    just caught a few minutes of Max & Stacy on Keiser Report (RT) who are beside themselves with excitement over the following:

    3 May: CNBC: Oil demand (and prices) set to drop dramatically as new technologies take hold
    •Oil prices are rising now but it won’t last.
    •Dropping prices for solar and wind, along with new battery technologies and growing use of electric cars, will create a dramatic shift in demand for oil and gas.
    •In the next 10 years the energy industry will see more change than it has in the past 100.
    by Geoffrey Heal, professor, Columbia Business School

    But the recent and rapid decline in prices of alternative energy sources like wind and solar, and the plunging cost to store them presage a very different future on the horizon – one in which fossil fuels go the way of the dinosaurs, and where in the next 10 years we will see more changes to the energy industry than we have seen in the past 100…

    One major result of the adoption of this new technology and the dramatic drop in gas prices it has produced is the hollowing-out of the U.S. coal industry, reduced from a 35 billion-dollar industry in just 2011, to a 3 billion-dollar industry in 2017…

    ***Consider now that solar energy, which has become steadily more competitive as its scale has grown, has gone from producing electric power at $179 per megawatt hour (mWh) in 2009, to $50 per mWh in 2017.
    ***At this rate, solar energy has already undercut gas ($60 per mWh), coal ($102 per mWh), and nuclear energy ($148 per mWh) in cost…
    ***Similar strides have been made in harnessing wind energy sources, with onshore wind costing $40 per mWh and offshore wind sources in 2017 priced at $60.

    Posing zero threat to local communities and environments, offshore wind sources are already being adopted by cities like New York, where a contract was recently signed to build an offshore wind farm off the coast of Long Island that will provide power to millions of homes in the nation’s most populous city…
    The dramatic drop in energy storage costs, from $3000/kWh to $170/kWh in about 20 years, has made increased storage capacity possible, mainly through the development of the Lithium-ion battery…

    ***For the same reason your new smartphone can hold a charge longer, wind and solar energy are fast emerging as a viable and reliable way of powering the entire economy…

    Oil and gas will still have a market, though a reduced one, in supplying feedstock to the petrochemical industry for making plastics, and in air and sea transportation, where renewables or batteries are unlikely to be competitive. The drop in demand for oil and gas will, therefore, lower prices and drive out high-cost producers, including most deep-water wells and tar sands…

    And if electric vehicles gain ground, as many in the auto industry expect, the future will be largely free of fossil fuels.

    The next decade will be an exciting one for the energy industry, and for those who worry about climate change and the environmental impact of our energy use.

    Commentary by Geoffrey Heal, the Donald C. Waite III Professor of Social Enterprise and a Chazen Senior Scholar at Columbia Business School. He is the author of Endangered Economies: How the Neglect of Nature Threatens Our Prosperity.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/03/oil-demand-and-prices-to-drop-as-solar-wind-energy-take-hold.html

    10

    • #
      pat

      11 May: Toronto Sun: EDITORIAL: Hey Al Gore, leave our economy alone
      Canadians have been exceedingly polite in response to the obstructionism that’s been occurring against the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.
      The majority of people support it, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Rachel Notley back it and First Nations in its path have signed on to it.

      Yet we continue to respectfully tolerate the drawn out shenanigans from the likes of B.C. Premier John Horgan and federal Green leader Elizabeth May.
      Fair enough. They are our fellow citizens and neighbours after all. And we are a well-mannered country, ever tolerant of differences of opinion…

      But that generosity does in no means need to extend to foreign interlopers. Yes, that’s right. We’re talking about you, Al Gore…
      Gore made news when he posted to social media that “the Kinder Morgan pipeline carrying dirty tar sands oil would be a step backward in our efforts to solve the climate crisis. I stand with [Horgan], [Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson], and all of the Canadians – including the First Nations – who are fighting to stop this destructive pipeline. #StopKM”…

      For starters, it’s funny how Gore still uses the dated and misleading “dirty tar sands” slogan. As Lorrie Goldstein recently explained, “we meekly bought the environmental propaganda coming from south of the border, and from within our own country, that our oil sands contained the world’s dirtiest oil. In fact, the world’s dirtiest oil comes from Nigeria.”
      It’s also offensive that Gore would use First Nations as a prop for his ideological agenda. Dozens of First Nations communities directly along the pipeline’s path have signed deals with Kinder Morgan. They want this to go through…

      And the idea that it’s destructive? Heavens. It’s a giver of life to our economy.
      Gore is arguing Canada should be impoverished. Meanwhile, he’s rolling in the dough. Over a decade ago he founded a multibillion dollar green energy fund. And remember, Gore was the guy predicting ocean levels would rise 20 feet.

      Sorry Al, we’re not buying it. Leave Canada alone.
      http://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-hey-al-gore-leave-our-economy-alone

      13 May: PJ Media: Karenna Gore: Religious Leaders Should Urge Climate Activism on ‘Moral and Spiritual Level’
      By Nicholas Ballasy
      Karenna Gore, director of the Center for Earth Ethics at Union Theological Seminary, urged the Catholic Church and other “faith communities” to become climate change activists and preach about taking action on the issue.

      “I actually think that [preaching is] one of the main things that could actually break through on this issue. One of the ways that we could break through on this issue is if people really start to think deeply on another level about it; on a moral and spiritual level and are moved from a different kind of place to take action, to raise it with their elected representatives, to make it inform their individual choices but also our political agenda, to be constantly saying, why are we building up more fossil fuels? Why don’t we switch to a new renewable energy?” Gore told PJM following a discussion at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University on Monday evening…

      Gore, the eldest daughter of former Vice President Al Gore, compared the climate change movement to the civil rights movement…
      Gore said the Catholic Church is “already a major player in the climate movement” because of Pope Francis…
      “It’s a matter of how much more damage we’re going to do. I mean, we know that eventually we’ll change from fossil fuels to renewable energy, it’s just how much more damage are we going to do?…

      “Almost 100 percent of scientists, 97 or something peer-reviewed studies, have come back with this science telling us all of this. And what they told us 10 years ago, whenever it was, has been exactly as they said so we’re starting to feel these impacts now as they said they would come – that should mean that we should pay extra-close attention to what they’re saying about what’s coming in the future,” she added. “And instead, the people who are in charge of our government, in the White House and Congress, are actually not even paying any attention at all. It’s extraordinary.”…

      Gore told PJM “I don’t think so” when asked if she plans on running for public office…
      https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/karenna-gore-religious-leaders-should-urge-climate-activism-on-moral-and-spiritual-level/

      10

  • #

    Don’t know if TonyfromOz has been linking to his PA site lately. Here’s his report: Australian Base Load Electrical Power – Week Ending 12th May 2018

    https://papundits.wordpress.com/2018/05/13/australian-base-load-electrical-power-week-ending-12th-may-2018/

    Marvellous stuff, coal. No wonder Asians (aka the people who make all our stuff) buy heaps of Aussie coal. They’re not silly. I notice Japan is really bundling back into coal. What do they know that our green lobbyists, luvvies and carpetbaggers aren’t telling?

    90

    • #

      Papundits, ‘Fossil Fuel 85.6% of overall total’- Say,warmies,
      isn’t that, gasp, a consensus we’re looking at here? Intermittent
      renewables 11.3% of total. :(

      70

      • #

        It’s worse than that, my serf. They bundle the really lame stuff with the hydro. Nobody minds a spot of downhill hydro. (It’s the uphill hydro and the sight of our preppy Prime Minister in fluoro jacket and hard hat that make one nauseous.)

        This kind of stunt where you bundle whirlies with dams under “renewables” is called zibelling, after a pest species introduced from the US east coast.

        80

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T-ish

    “Physicist: Climate Scientists Are Giving Science a Bad Name”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/14/physicist-climate-scientists-are-giving-science-a-bad-name/

    40

  • #
    pat

    ***calling Trump dishonest, while claiming 99% of climate scientists believe in CAGW!
    can’t find who at AP wrote this heavily-biased drivel:

    12 May: LA Times: AP: Bloomberg warns that an ‘epidemic of dishonesty’ threatens U.S. democracy
    That’s according to former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who warned in a commencement speech Saturday at Rice University that “an endless barrage of lies” and a trend toward “alternate realities” in national politics pose a dire threat to U.S. democracy.
    The 76-year-old billionaire, who flirted with an independent presidential run in 2016, did not call out any politicians by name.
    Although he derided Donald Trump before his election as “a con” and a “dangerous demagogue,” in an interview before the speech Bloomberg refused to comment specifically on the Republican president’s troubled history with the truth. Fact checkers have determined that Trump has made hundreds of false or misleading statements since entering the Oval Office…

    In the speech, Bloomberg evoked the legend of the nation’s first president, George Washington, who as a boy, legend has it, said he could not tell a lie when asked whether he had cut down a cherry tree.
    “How did we go from a president who could not tell a lie to politicians who cannot tell the truth?” Bloomberg asked Rice graduates and their families gathered in Houston…

    In one jab at Trump, he noted that the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is real. Trump and many of his Republican allies have repeatedly called climate change a hoax promoted by America’s adversaries.

    ***”If 99% of scientists whose research has been peer-reviewed reach the same general conclusion about a theory, then we ought to accept it as the best available information — even if it’s not a 100% certainty,” Bloomberg said. He added: “That, graduates, is not a Chinese hoax.”

    He warned that such deep levels of dishonesty could enable what he called “criminality.” Asked what specifically he was talking about, Bloomberg noted “lots of investigations” going on, but he declined to be more specific.

    Several Trump associates are facing criminal charges as part of a federal investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Three have already pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI. Federal investigators want to interview Trump himself, although the president’s legal team has resisted so far…
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-michael-bloomberg-rice-university-20180512-story.html

    sadly a Fox piece leaves out the George Washington reference and gives the impression Bloomberg is referring to Obama, as the President who could not lie!

    13 May: Fox News: Bloomberg slams pols for ‘epidemic of dishonesty,’ calls it a greater threat than terrorism
    by Paulina Dedaj
    ***”If 99 percent of scientists whose research has been peer-reviewed reach the same general conclusion about a theory, then we ought to accept it as the best available information — even if it’s not a 100 percent certainty,” Bloomberg said…

    ***“How did we go from a president who could not tell a lie to politicians who cannot tell the truth?”…
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/12/bloomberg-slams-pols-for-epidemic-dishonesty-calls-it-greater-threat-than-terrorism.html

    40

  • #
    pat

    Bloomberg again on CBS Face The Nation: ***Ninety nine percent of all scientists after peer review say that something is happening in the world. It’s changing. Everybody that looks outside their window can see that we have less snow here and more snow there and bigger storms and a whole bunch of things that the oceans are rising and things are changing and you can’t deny that…

    full transcript below OMITS about half of what is in the video, including all the anti-coal stuff which begins at 6mins in (best thing we’ve done is shut down coal-fired power plants, etc) and his spruiking of “renewables”. the usual media love affair:

    VIDEO: 26mins35secs: 22 Apr: CBS Face The Nation: Transcript: Michael Bloomberg on “Face the Nation,” April 22, 2018
    (MARGARET) BRENNAN, CBS: BRENNAN: Should he (SCOTT PRUITT) be fired?

    BLOOMBERG: That’s up to the president to decide. If he could get Scott Pruitt to change his policies, then he can keep him. But it’s– the issue is that what he’s doing is very damaging to your health and your children’s health and mine

    BRENNAN: But he would say and the administration would say that criticisms like yours are just pure politics.

    BLOOMBERG: If there’s anybody that’s making it a political issue it’s this administration.
    ***Ninety nine percent of all scientists after peer review say that something is happening in the world. It’s changing. Everybody that looks outside their window can see that we have less snow here and more snow there and bigger storms and a whole bunch of things that the oceans are rising and things are changing and you can’t deny that…

    BRENNAN: Because you’re a numbers guy what are the odds you’d put on you deciding to run (FOR THE PRESIDENCY)?

    BLOOMBERG: Not very high. You know look I’ve–

    BRENNAN: Not very high, but not zero?

    BLOOMBERG: Well if God said I’d appoint you– I think it’s a great challenge and you’d have to think long and hard, and you know, you’re physically able to do it…
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-michael-bloomberg-on-face-the-nation-april-22-2018/

    for the record re the George Washington reference:

    VIDEO: 24MINS 19SECS: 12 May: Mike Bloomberg Delivers 2018 Commencement Address at Rice University
    These are his remarks as delivered.
    “We’ve always lionized our two greatest presidents — Washington and Lincoln — not only for their accomplishments, but also for their honesty. We see their integrity and morals as a reflection of our honor as a nation.
    “However, today when we look at the city that bears Washington’s name, it’s hard not to wonder: What the hell happened?…

    “Take science for example: If 99 percent of scientists whose research has been peer-reviewed reach the same general conclusion about a theory, then we ought to accept it as the best available information — even if it’s not a 100 percent certainty…

    “That, graduates, is not a Chinese hoax. It’s called science — and we should demand that politicians have the honesty to respect it.
    “Hard though it is to believe, some federal agencies have actually banned their employees from using the phrase ‘climate change.’ If censorship solved problems, today we’d all be part of the old USSR, and the Soviets would have us speaking Russian.

    Of course, it’s always good to be skeptical and ask questions. But we must be willing to place a certain amount of trust in the integrity of scientists. If you aren’t willing to do that, don’t get on an airplane, don’t use a cell phone or microwave, don’t get treated in a hospital, and don’t even think about binge-watching Netflix.

    “Scientific discovery permeates practically every aspect of our lives — except, too often, our political debates…

    “So how did we get here? How did we go from a president who could not tell a lie to politicians who can not tell the truth? From a George Washington who embodied honesty, to a Washington, D.C. defined by deceit?…
    https://www.mikebloomberg.com/news/mike-bloomberg-delivers-2018-commencement-address-rice-university/

    10

  • #
  • #
    yarpos

    So Jo, you are saying the transition to renewables may be delayed somewhat then?

    00

  • #
    Tim Spence

    So the best sites are already occupied by ageing plant that cannot be upgraded, only replaced.

    Now whoda thunk that, I’ve been saying it for the last maybe ten years.

    Also remember that the cables, transformers and connectors will have to be replaced. That far flung network of outputs that need inputting into a grid, before the scam can take-off. Nobody talks about the (UK example, 4 Billion) costs of infrastructure to plug 1000 disparate sources into a system designed for a handful of powerful power plants.

    50

    • #
      yarpos

      Its funny how one part of the renewables camp talk about decentralising power and doing away with the grid, while another needs to litter the landscape with transmission lines from assorted locations so they can connect to the grid, which they need to mine subsidies.

      10

  • #
    pat

    it’s always “threatening to derail”. what a joke:

    15 May: CarbonPulse: China coal consumption soars amid manufacturing boom
    Coal-fired power generation in China rose 7.3% y/y in April, outpacing overall power output amid an ongoing manufacturing boom threatening to derail efforts to curb carbon emissions.

    another Reuters piece that its subscribers will not carry:

    15 May: Reuters: German court backs jail term for Deutsche banker’s role in carbon tax fraud
    Reporting by Ursula Knapp; Writing by Arno Schuetze
    KARLSRUHE, Germany – Germany’s federal supreme court on Tuesday sentenced a former Deutsche Bank employee to three years in prison for his role in a carbon emission permit trading scheme designed to curb global warming but used to fraudulently collect tens of millions of euros of sales tax.
    The ruling by the Federal Court of Justice affirmed the 2016 lower-court conviction of Helmut Hohnholz, formerly a regional sales manager with Deutsche’s global markets division.

    The court also backed the judgments against three other former Deutsche bankers, who two years ago received suspended jail sentences. The case of one former employee of Deutsche’s tax accounting division was referred back to lower court as his active role in the crime could not be fully proven…

    The case stems from an investigation into so-called carousel trades in the European Union’s carbon market in 2009 and 2010, in which some buyers imported emissions permits into one EU country without paying value-added tax (VAT)…
    European police agency Europol has estimated the cost to taxpayers at more than 5 billion euros ($6 billion) since 2008…

    Of the seven former Deutsche Bank employees originally on trial in Frankfurt, two had accepted the court ruling, while five had appealed it. The prosecutors had also appealed the ruling, criticizing that four of the defendants had not been sentenced as culprits, but only as accessories to the tax fraud…
    Germany’s flagship lender is in the throes of a major restructuring, hamstrung by having to pay out billions of euros of fines to end a slew of legal rows.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-deutsche-bank-court/german-court-backs-jail-term-for-deutsche-bankers-role-in-carbon-tax-fraud-idUSKCN1IG185

    10

  • #
    pat

    comment in moderation re: 15 May: CarbonPulse: China coal consumption soars amid manufacturing boom

    madder by the day:

    15 May: CarbonBrief: Analysis: The gender, nationality and institution of IPCC AR6 scientists
    by Robert McSweeney
    For AR6, the IPCC has selected 721 authors, representing 90 different nationalities. This is a slight reduction on the 829 authors for the fifth assessment report (AR5) published in 2013-14.
    Using the information provided by the IPCC, Carbon Brief reveals the mix of nationalities and genders across the authors, as well as the institutions they represent…READ ON
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-gender-nationality-institution-ipcc-ar6-authors

    10

  • #
    pat

    14 May: UK Telegraph: Invest in ‘green’ firms or risk being wiped out by climate change, Bank of England tells the City
    By Tim Wallace
    Efforts to stop global temperatures from climbing to dangerous levels require substantial changes to the structure of the economy, rendering older technologies worthless and rewarding companies that are more environmentally friendly.

    The switch from old to new could come suddenly, Bank executive director Sarah Breeden said, meaning investors risk being wiped out if they are not well prepared.
    “Once climate change becomes a clear and present danger, it may already be too late,” she told the Green Finance Initiative and Green Finance Committee in London…
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/14/invest-green-firms-risk-wiped-climate-change-bank-england-tells/

    14 May: Bank of England: The shared response to climate change: turning momentum into action – speech by Sarah Breeden, Executive Director, International Banks Supervision
    Based on remarks given to the Green Finance Initiative and Green Finance Committee on 19 March 2018
    DOWNLOAD PDF
    Introduction
    Thank you for the opportunity to explain what might otherwise not be obvious – why the Bank of England has an interest in climate change…

    Climate change, financial risk and the Bank of England’s objectives
    Climate change, and society’s response to it, presents financial risks which impact the Bank’s objectives. Those risks arise principally on two dimensions: the physical effects of climate change (for example from more frequent or intense storms); and the impact of changes as we transition to the lower-carbon economy that is consistent with the commitments made by governments in Paris two years ago.
    Those risks have the potential to affect the Bank’s core responsibilities both for the safety and soundness of the firms we regulate and for the stability of the financial system if there is a late, abrupt and disorderly transition…

    Green Finance
    But we can accurately measure the labelled green bond market. This has continued to develop rapidly: issuance reached over $150bn in 2017, and is forecast by some to pass $200bn this year overall…
    Around a fifth of the required investment in the renewable energy, energy efficiency and low emission vehicle sectors will need to come from green bonds.5 If this is indicative of the need for green finance generally, we’ll need to scale that $150bn up by a factor of ten…READ ON
    https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2018/sarah-breeden-remarks-to-the-green-finance-initiative-and-green-finance-committee

    10

  • #
    pat

    hilarious … and so wrong on so many counts. open the link for the photo illustration, and click on Jamie’s name/pic to get his bio:

    15 May: The Conversation: To get conservative climate contrarians to really listen, try speaking their language
    by Jamie Freestone, PhD student in literature, The University of Queensland
    We also know that politics, not scientific knowledge, shapes people’s view of climate change. Hence deniers are generally politically conservative, regardless of scientific literacy. That means a climate change narrative that appeals to conservative values is a high priority…

    They’re also likely to be unmoved by messages that emphasise the impact of climate change on the world’s poor. Especially ineffective are morally tinged narratives about how climate change is humanity’s fault and that we’re getting our comeuppance.
    It doesn’t matter how accurate any of these narratives are; they won’t work with someone who isn’t open to them. Instead, we need to tailor new climate change narratives that appeal specifically to people with a conservative worldview…

    Third, climate change can be framed as a matter of impurity rather than harm. Harm to marginalised people and the environment is how many liberal-minded people conceive of climate change. But conservatives think more in terms of purity or sanctity. No worries. The effects of climate change can be no less accurately framed as being a violation of the purity or sanctity of the planet. Instead of harm to ecosystems, it’s a contamination of God’s green Earth…
    https://theconversation.com/to-get-conservative-climate-contrarians-to-really-listen-try-speaking-their-language-94296

    20

  • #
    pat

    14 May: Nature Geoscience Comment: Politically informed advice for climate action
    by Oliver Geden
    (The Ocean in the Earth System, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany;
    Centre for Globalisation and Governance, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany;
    EU/Europe Research Division, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin, Germany)
    Upward estimates for carbon budgets are unlikely to lead to action-focused climate policy. Climate researchers need to understand processes and incentives in policymaking and politics to communicate effectively.

    Climate policymakers unexpectedly received an extension by about 500 Gt in the remaining budget of carbon dioxide emissions for ambitious temperature targets, as a recalculated 1.5 °C budget was published in September 2017, and the approach later confirmed. That the previous estimate — introduced in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — is in need of an update that could lead to larger carbon budgets is now broadly accepted.
    Nevertheless, the specifics of the recalculation, and consequently the magnitude of the extension, have been controversial within the climate community…READ ON
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0143-3

    10

  • #
    RAH

    Ok. This question is completely OT but sometimes one has to ask when they are thinking about it.
    This story: http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/05/15/australia-blames-hamas-gaza-deaths-call-made-move-embassy-jerusalem/
    and gives me the impression that Australia differs from many in the old country because both the Australian people in general and it’s government supports the right of Israel to exist and it’s claims to Jerusalem as it Capital.
    Am I correct?

    00

  • #