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

It’d be fine if we could put electricity in shoe boxes. (Wind power is 98% unreliable)

Australia now has  nearly 10GW of wind power installed on the National Electricity Grid, but look at the monthly minimums — the guaranteed power we can rely on.  The good news is that it’s increased by 10% over this time last year. The bad news is that it was only 216MW.

From the 10,000MW of windpower we paid to install, at one point in the last month only 2% was working, and that’s not unusual.

The true dismal story of wind power is that we need a near total second network of generators just sitting around waiting as back up. Since the back up is reliable, we could use them instead.  As a bonus, backup power won’t kill birds, bats and hypnotize crabs and it won’t destroy sleep for farmers and spotted quolls, and it doesn’t create a national security risk either. Handy, eh?

Wind power, NEM Australia, minimum montly reliable generation, graph.

Original graph:  WattClarity   |    Click to enlarge.

The monthly average generation is about 30% of capacity.  But the world doesn’t run on average electricity.

9.8 out of 10 based on 86 ratings

207 comments to It’d be fine if we could put electricity in shoe boxes. (Wind power is 98% unreliable)

  • #
    Jojodogfacedboy

    Billions of dollars flushed down the toilet…if you have the power to flush.
    These companies sure do love the government subsidies though.

    500

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      And given the shorter life of these methods yet more billions will need to be flushed.

      420

    • #
      Klem

      “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

      – Warren Buffet May 2012

      590

      • #
        davefromweewaa

        Never has so much wealth transferred to so few from so many!

        400

        • #
          Custer Van Cleef

          Also helped by the massive volume of new money creation by Central Banks.

          You never hear the mega-rich complain about “printing” money — because they’re the ones that benefit.

          180

        • #
          John Karajas

          Sorry davefromweewaa at #1.2.1: Have you ever heard of how much Vladimir Putin and his bosom-buddy Oligarchs have stolen from the Russian people?

          21

    • #
      Dennis

      The Federal Government will not subsidise wind and solar installations after 2030 and amended company laws to force greater pricing competition between all electricity suppliers.

      They have also proposed one new coal fired power station (NTH QLD) and four gas fired generators (VIC, SEQLD and NSW), to date only one gas fired generator has been given planning approval, NSW Hunter Valley.

      161

      • #
        David Maddison

        Currently Australia has very high gas prices due to John Howard signing most of our North West Shelf gas to the Chicomms at world’s cheapest prices on a 30 year contract plus prohibitions on drilling and fracking.

        Surely coal would be cheaper so why wasn’t that allowed four the four gas power stations, most of which will likely never get planning approval from the states.

        110

        • #
          Dennis

          I think your confusing the general gas export agreement signed by PM Gillard and Treasurer Swan of Union Labor at a later time.

          And bans on drilling and fracking are another of the many State Government areas of responsibility including planning permission, State Environmental Protection laws, and others.

          91

          • #
          • #
            David Maddison

            And I understand a lot of the issues with drilling are state responsibilities but the Feds could provide leadership and guidance consistent with national objectives.

            There is zero leadership by SloMo.

            130

            • #
              Dennis

              David I recommend that you do what I have done, research Federation and former British Colonies retention of those individual area or colony areas of responsibility and powers when they, the Federation of States, former the Federal Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.

              Offshore is a Federal area but onshore is State and when you mention leadership and guidance consistent with national objectives you ignore the politics of opposed political parties in government. However, the pandemic should have provided a guide. Contrary to poorly informed observers the Federal Government Cabinet of Ministers and PM made many requests for States to tone it down, open interstate borders for example which some did and others didn’t do.

              Are you aware that Federal negotiations with States for the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electricity Scheme took over ten years to obtain agreement on? States controlled and owned the lands and waterways, and are resonsible for electricity supply, and more recently to get the Snowy 02 pumped hydro project underway (an original part of the SMHES plan) the Federal Government ended up buying State Government shares in Snowy Hydro, a State condition for planning approval.

              There is no PM magic wand, and most decisions are PM/Premier with Cabinet Ministers voting in the majority. Add to the instability the UN treaty and agreements factor.

              31

              • #
                yarpos

                Mcgowan seems to be 6 to 12 months behind reality with his rhetoric. If anything he has created his own issues with his extended hermit kingdom approach.

                [Sorry Yarpos. I really was naughty going off topic. – jo]

                70

              • #

                Dennis, apologies. I am guilty of going wildly off topic (I didn’t check from the moderation window) so I have put myself in moderation with your considered replies. I’ll see I can find a way to move our comments somewhere appropriate so we can continue. Clearly it is worth expanding that debate. Thanks to everyone else for not joining in here. Sigh!

                00

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        G’day Dennis,
        We’re already in a raging fire of increasing prices and increasing unreliability and these twits are going add more fuel to that fire for another 8 years!
        That’s clever.
        Cheers
        Dave B

        50

    • #
      Bruce

      the “spillage”.

      00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    The point about a reduction in Capacity Factor is already apparent in South Australia because (at times) wind generates too much for the grid to handle, and some wind farms are ordered (by AEMO) to stop generating. The ‘solution’ is the new interconnector being built to NSW, but what happens when “Mad Matt” gets his giant renewables park off the ground?

    And the belief among politicians, bureaucrats and financial operators that there is a never ending supply of money available from the taxpayer may come to an abrupt end.

    400

  • #
    PeterS

    If this wasn’t serious it would be a classic joke. I am convinced that all our Western leaders are complete imbeciles or they are colluding to create a regime change for whatever reason (it might even be legitimate but I doubt it). The main reason I am leaning towards the second option is they are all on the exact same page often speaking the exact same words so it can’t be just a coincidence.
    Running The UK Off Imaginary Energy

    370

    • #

      Peter

      I have come to the reluctant conclusion that our elite are nowhere near as clever as they think they are. Unfortunately we know that, but they don’t

      430

      • #
        yarpos

        Yes they dont appear to be very smart in any practical sense. Their expertise seems to be limited to getting and holding political power. Once there, they very little idea what to do with it and position themselves as middlemen (and women) and “take advice” from a favoured few without adding any value. They seem devoid of any capacity to think critically as individuals.

        Many of them have had no experience outside of the political machine and a STEM education is almost certainly going to be a barrier to a senior cabinet level role.

        200

      • #
        Ian

        “I have come to the reluctant conclusion that our elite ”

        Just who are “our elite”? The term “elite” is bandied about with abandon but is rarely defined.

        29

        • #
          Dennis

          I agree Ian, who are they?

          From my business experience investors are a wide range of people from small “mum and dad” investors, superannuation fund investors, private sector company investors, foreign investors and others who invest to earn dividends on their shareholding, and who expect the best Return On Investment possible.

          High wealth individuals and investment companies and bankers are usually the source of the finance for new ventures, and they seek to attract other investors regardless of shareholding potential.

          Unfortunately many small investors are easily misled and wind turbine based electricity supply is one that has already been used by the major investors to create wealth until the replacement of equipment time is approaching and they then sell their shares leaving not so well informed shareholders to suffer financial loss or years of no return if the decision was to replace the equipment and continue operating.

          53

    • #
      Gary S

      Most of our politicians are certainly imbecilic, the rest are just covering their arses until they are re-elected by the sheeple. Bear in mind that you need to hold a qualification to connect a toilet or install an electrical power point, but you can run an entire nation or even the whole of the free world without any prior experience or qualifications whatsoever. All you require is the ability to convince enough people to vote you into power.

      200

  • #
    Kalm+Keith

    Disneyland in the U.S. may be in trouble but the fantasy world of Renewable Energy is still open for business.

    Renewables in any form are an obscene imposition on the trusting public which is essentially being enslaved by lies.

    Through the structural sleight of hand practised by modern governments the electricity generation system has been reframed to hide and reallocate the costs of renewables to the core producer, Coal.

    While coal has environmental problems, these have increasingly been addressed and minimized over time so that currently coal comes out way in front of Renewables in both cost and environmental terms.

    The abuse of the general public by the imposition of renewables on society has been another demonstration of human ugliness that seems never-ending.

    KK

    510

    • #
      Serp

      Peculiar isn’t it that zealots who want coal destroyed refuse to allow it to be burned; living on top of five hundred years of known deposits could be giving them nightmares, one can only hope.

      80

  • #
    PeterS

    90% Expert Certainty that we are deliberately being scammed by our own governments in the West with all this nonsense about man-made climate change. Don’t bother looking for a solution unless one is prepared to stop voting for them.

    240

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    Is Australian government energy policy serving the needs of Australia, or is it serving the agenda of an obscured authority structure outside of Australia?
    Rhetorical question.
    We all know the answer.
    Your leaders tell you these policies will prevent floods and hot summers.

    Advancing glaciers, once a potential geologic threat, are now an enlightened goal of concerned science enthusiasts.

    Two years ago, under the horrid Orange One, my country was energy independent.
    Now I must curtail my consumption of food in order to afford the gas to go buy food.
    But my new completely legitimate President tells me inflation is good and that my malcontent is caused by Putin.
    And ending fossil fuels is essential, though it may require some of us less fortunate citizens to be fossilized.

    NWO, a meaningless term.
    My susceptibility to conspiracy theories is the result of my unwillingness to understand that I must suffer for the sake of humanity.
    Dang that rascal Putin.

    370

    • #
      Dennis

      Electricity supply in Australia is a State Government area of responsibility, changes including privatisation after the sale of State owned power stations and transmission lines, based on incentives from a Federal Labor Government with Renewable Energy Target and at the time a carbon tax and a renewable energy surcharge on consumer’s electricity accounts, are managed by a cooperative of governments and others, Australian Energy Market Operator.

      41

    • #
      Simpleminded

      There was a remark attributed once to a General Secretary of the Party in the USSR: “We are pure of heart and purpose, our methods are decisive and ethical, our goals are for the betterment of everyone…but we are extremely unfortunate with our populace”. It appears that every government in a reasonably developed world can use it as an excuse – they are very unlucky with the people they are suppose to govern. We just refuse to line up and beg for more of the same BS. We ask uncomfortable questions, we expect that for our taxpayer dollar we will get return in form of good public education, good affordable medical care, good roads and infallible infrastructure. In short, we are being a nuisance, an obstacle on the sure path to the brilliant goals that our respective governments want to lead us to with an iron glove.
      How about this idea that begs to be implemented: We, the “Leaders” get ourselves better people, eager to self-sacrifice for us, the ones that will cheer at our ideas (not blabbing stupid mantras like “democracy, freedom”) and work together happily for the common good of all humanity, as we, the “Leaders” see it. Besides, resource reach countries do not need population, you can fly in and fly out essential workers from elsewhere. No need to provide healthcare, education and all this other crap, like aged care. And the rest of the land can become an enviroparadise where GM lion will be hugging GM lamb…sorry, no lamb, they fart and pollute…hugging a koala!
      There is nothing wrong with “susceptibility to conspiracy theories”. They are only theories after all, they serve as an entertainment, brain teasers, charades, amusement in the world where fantasy and imagination are in short supply. Have you heard of suspended disbelief? Not in the official interpretation. But as in I choose to believe anything until I can prove to myself irrevocably that it’s BS. And I still reserve a right to be horribly wrong!

      30

      • #
        Honk R Smith

        Was there a ‘conspiracy’ of ideological government and academic cohorts coalescing in the late 80s, to to convince the public that the Earth was facing life destroying ‘warming’ caused by human activity?
        (Never mind that we are surrounded by a seriously cold space void that we have appear to have lost interest in Trekking to.)

        Was this ‘conspiracy’ not promoted by the UN and world government ideologues, primarily for the purpose of establishing international legal structures to weaken and supersede nation state control and authority?

        Is the alleged ‘scientific’ evidence for the purported ‘observed’ warming not computer model algorithmic [email protected]?
        ‘Look silly citizen at our magic science computer predictions produced by academic tarot card readers paid by us.’

        Did we not discover them planning the falsification of said dubious temp data with “Mike’s nature trick”?

        The biggest conspiratorial fraud of all history.

        I have already instructed my that epitaph read …
        “Damn, Keith Richards is still alive!” or “I told you Global Warming was [email protected]”.
        Could end up being both.
        Matters little.
        They’ve won.

        20

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Good outline; and yes, they have won.
          There is a problem though.
          The world that they have won is in a state of collapse and the future’s looking kinda grim.

          How to fix this, I don’t know, but the first thought that comes to mind is the we must build large numbers of prisons and cast all of the elites into them.

          Anyone with a Swabb like mindset should be removed from society.

          One thing for sure: we need a quick fix and soon.

          KK

          20

  • #
    Erasmus

    This should be a national scandal, but with dishonesty rife in all areas (climate activism, media and politicians) it goes on being hidden from the general public.
    There’s nobody “keeping the bastards honest”, that’s for sure.

    270

  • #
    Lance

    It is unclear, to me, why AU is bothering at all with this renewable/unreliable exercise in futility.

    AU CO2 emissions are 1.16% of world emissions. China emits 33.7% of world emissions. India emits 12.5% of world emissions.

    China and India emit nearly half of all world CO2.

    Australian emissions are irrelevant to this picture, even if one subscribes to AGW and the wandering model outputs.

    It doesn’t matter what AU does to increase or decrease their emissions. AU couldn’t emit 2% of world CO2 if it wanted and tried to. AU cannot emit less than 1% of world CO2 without destroying their economy. And it really doesn’t matter if AU does anything at all.

    440

    • #
      b.nice

      Especially as atmospheric CO2 are still actually well below optimum, and the atmosphere and nature could use more atmospheric CO2.
      Whatever is done in the once-developed countries, will have zero impact on anything anyway.
      The whole situation is one of utter and complete stupidity.

      370

      • #

        Lance

        Don’t forget that 96% of all co2 emissions come from natural sources so your figures should be seen as the percentages relating to mans 4% contributions.

        In the case of the UK if we disappeared tomorrow there would be a theoretical temperature drop of around 1/200 th of a degree. Equivalent to walking up three steps as temperature falls with altitude.

        Our much maligned agricultural industry if it disappeared tomorrow would mean a theoretical temperature reduction of 1/2000th of a degree although if we all went vegan, as is the demand, our co2 consumption would actually increase. We import many of the items vegans require rather than grow it here

        280

        • #
          Lance

          Yes, Tonyb, Dr Murry Salby said almost exactly what you are stating. This is a useful reference for that:

          https://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/

          40

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          And Ian Plimer (in his book Green Murder) is of the opinion that up to half of the increase blamed on mankind probably comes from the huge quantities of CO2 (and SO2) that spew from hundreds of thousands of volcanic vents on the deep ocean floors. He postulates that these gasses slowly rise from the ocean floors and eventually escape to the atmosphere. “And this Nature balances herself”.

          80

          • #
            PeterPetrum

            He pointed out the the CO2 isotopes from volcanic emissions are the same as for burning fossil fuels, thus the tendency to blame man for all the increase.

            60

          • #
            Earl

            And not all offenders are under the sea with New Zealand’s White Island a very close example. The good/bad thing is that since November 2021 gas emmissions have decreased – Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions decreased from 681 to 484 tonnes/day. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions decreased from 2712 to 1416 tonnes/day as well as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions from 38 to 19 tonnes/day. The potential bad side of the decline of course is that the island may be a bit constipated (is that a co vid symptom?) and when the pressure gets too much she will blow and instantly wipe out any recent “gains”.

            10

    • #
      David Maddison

      It is unclear, to me, why AU is bothering at all with this renewable/unreliable exercise in futility.

      Australia seems to be unusually and fanatically committed to the anthropogenic global warming fraud and UN decrees in general, even to the extent of self-destruction of the nation, and even with a Federal pretend conservative government.

      310

      • #
        yarpos

        But gosh wont we look good and virtuous as we collapse in a heap.

        150

        • #
          Honk R Smith

          “Doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you look good doin’ it.”

          The great philosopher David Lee Roth
          Lead singer Van Halen

          110

      • #
        Dennis

        Really, our Federal Government upset many UN member nations and the IPCC at COP26 in Glasgow by refusing to stop coal mining and exports, also refused to increase our Paris Agreement emissions reduction target and change the target date from 2030 back to 2025, and Australia was supported by only a small number of member nations, our two main allies, UK and US, were demanding the above changes.

        Our allies also wanted Australia to commit to an agreement to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 but the PM and Cabinet would not do that, the response was that Australia has “an aspirational goal” for net zero subject to development of new technology and without damaging the economy, no formal commitment. The PM also pointed out that Australia exceeded the Kyoto Agreement emissions target and is well on track to at least meet the Paris Agreement emissions target now.

        And, in January 2022, during a video conference address to the WEF Conference in Davos, Switzerland the PM stated that Australia will not adopt the WEF economic model which the PM described using sarcasm, but will continue to support free enterprise (capitalism to leftists) and business here in Australia to continue to build a strong economy and economic prosperity. The Budget papers supported these objectives and the 3.5% GDP economic growth recovery underway.

        30

      • #
        Dennis

        Keen current affairs and politics watchers are aware that the transition to renewable energy (unreliable and intermittent supply sources) began after the Kyoto Japan IPCC Conference 1997, the Howard Coalition Government elected in 1996 signed the Kyoto Agreement emissions reduction target but said they would not introduce measures that damaged the economy, one measure was to offer incentives for motor vehicles to use LPG dedicated or dual fuel systems because Australia has enormous reserves of natural gas and using that lower than petrol or diesel emissions source made good sense. After 2007 Labor abandoned the LPG programme.

        Another measure was a “trial only basis” proposal for private sector investment in “renewable energy” whatever projects were presented that on advice could be commercially viable, the target for trial was 3 per cent of grid electricity. After 2007 Labor changed the trial basis to their RET (Renewable Energy Target) with incentives, also a carbon tax and renewable energy surcharge on consumer electricity bills of 10 per cent each, plus 10 per cent GST on top of all charges. State Labor Governments reacted first and proceeded to sell and privatise State owned power stations and transmission lines, this was completed by Coalition State Governments that inherited the well underway sale process. The State of South Australia was first to introduce wind and solar, and to demolish coal fired power stations, in other States they were sold or leased.

        Turning back the clock now David is mission impossible, even if Labor State Governments (and Coalition LINO influenced State Governments) were willing to cooperate.

        You apparently are not aware of what the Federal Government has been doing to lower the impact of the so called transition to renewable energy by State Government support of private sector investment development applications? Like announcing the end of RET subsidies by 2030 (Abbott led Government reduced the RET percentage), adding new company law legislation to force more pricing competition between electricity supply businesses/companies, proposing new gas generators and one coal fired power station for State Government planning approval (only one gas generator so far approved and for Hunter Valley NSW recently). Changes at AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator cooperative) and more.

        Your “pretend” government reference would look ridiculous if Union controlled (industry super fund investors in wind and solar etc) Labor form Federal Government again and at the same time all but two State and no Territory governments in Union Labor hands.

        30

      • #
        Dennis

        The monitor bot doesn’t like me apparently.

        10

  • #

    The official figures in the UK for weather dependent renewables iare 11% for solar, 22% for on shore wind and 32% for off shore wind. The UK is supposed to be the windiest country in Europe but we have long periods with no wind which often happens in the winter when high pressure settles over us with no wind and no sun but cold temperatures. So just at the time energy is most needed renewables often go AWOL.

    I would imagine your figures for solar would be rather better and for wind rather worse, but when all is said and done for modern industrial 24/7 countries to base their economies on the whims of the weather gods is barking mad.

    Still I am sure our glorious always well informed elites know what they are doing

    170

  • #
    David Maddison

    Wind energy is measured and promoted dishonestly.

    Just as proper power generators like coal, gas, nuclear and proper hydro (not SH2) can deliver their rated power output at any random time (except for downtime such as maintenance) the minimum power that is deliverable at any time should be the only measure.

    For wind and solar subsidy farms that means they have to be coupled to batteries. Fine. But let them do it on a free market basis with no consumer or taxpayer subsidies. It shouldn’t be a problem because the Left keep telling us wind is supposedly so much cheaper than coal, LoL.

    350

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Yep let’s kill coal miners, transport workers, dump toxic material into the soil, air and water, for the mirage of allegedly cheap power.

    AEMO has a more realistic view of the contribution of wind

    145

    • #
      b.nice

      Or cause huge environmental damage in every stage of implementation of a mostly absent form of tax-payer money wasting non-electricity.

      And the LIE of coal miner deaths was shown to you yesterday, unless you are in complete denial and mathematical ignorance.

      Wind turbines produce FAR MORE toxic waste than coal ever will, and provide basically nothing back to society.

      From manufacturing, to installation, to operation, to end of life, wind turbines are an unmitigated environmental, ecological and economic disaster.

      380

    • #

      “dump toxic material into the soil” – as usual, mistaken.
      One example among many. Coal mine at Croxdale Durham UK. In ~1975, I was responsible for steering the reclamation scheme through the local Council and the DoE (Department of the Environment). Levelling off the site, armouring slopes with trees, sprinkling of topsoil to get the grass to start, so at least there would be grazing for sheep. Look at it now on Google Earth. Regularly bailed for hay, areas with vegetable cropping, dense woodland across the slopes. No sign that is was once a moonscape.

      270

      • #
        b.nice

        Remember the time a bunch of greenies pointed out a beautiful lake, saying “that is what this area should be like”..

        …. little knowing that it was a rehabilitated coal mine site.

        Very funny !

        200

        • #
          Dennis

          I spent a lot of working life time in coal mining areas around the Hunter Valley in NSW during the early 1970s and today I doubt that people who have no knowledge about the old mine areas could identify rehabilitated mine sites.

          190

        • #
          James Murphy

          almost as funny as the activists complaining about how humans had caused elevated radiation levels in rocks…at a uranium mine. This happened in the late 90s when a troupe of activists went wandering around Australia on a quest to show how terrible humans are. They weren’t even complaining about waste, or waste water, just the rocks themselves…

          110

        • #
          David Maddison

          Similarly, Greenies do not understand that most of the Dandenong Ranges in Vicdanistan were clear felled 100 years ago, there was nothing but bare dirt.

          Now moron Greens think it is virgin temperate rainforest.

          120

          • #
            another ian

            Like most of the mulga country in Queensland – which has been described as

            “about as pristine as a recycled virginity”

            30

      • #
        Gary S

        I live in the Dandenong ranges in Victoria and whenever family is visiting from the U.K., they never fail to be impressed by the vast, lush forested area around us. I then show them photographs from the early part of the 20th. century, and they are astounded at the obvious lack of tree cover and the enormous tracts of land cleared for farming and timber. They find it difficult to get their heads around the fact that just over a hundred years ago that was the scene before them now. Totally transformed. The planet will be just fine.

        200

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        try eating fist from lake macquarie, drinking from streams in the La Trobe, vegetable farmin near power stations in the hunter

        19

    • #
      yarpos

      as if nobody dies in the pursuit of wind and solar glory

      110

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Exactly WHAT toxic material does a coal power plant generate Peter? Did you read the CSIRO report on the absence of toxic waste from coal power plants?
      I think that you really should justify your assertion with some actual facts.

      230

      • #
        b.nice

        “We are being returned to serfdom.”

        That may well be the intent of the WEF/UN/bureacratic based push for unreliable, expensive electricity supply.

        In fact, its pretty close to their stated intent !

        90

      • #
        ozfred

        Even with the modern particulate filters, coal generation of electricity still creates far too much (NON CO2) pollution. Which natural gas powered systems do not.
        Pity the eastern states of Australia did /do not have the domestic use gas reservation policy that WA has.
        As well the capacity factor of WA’s wind generation does seem to be a lot higher than those previously referenced.
        Pity about WA’s borders though.

        00

    • #
      David Maddison

      Peter, the only place where significant numbers of coal miners are killed is in your beloved country China.

      But they are allowed to mine and burn coal without limit or complaint by the Left, even though they are the world’s largest CO2 emitter.

      CO2 Of course doesn’t matter but the whole mess we are in is due to those who falsely claim it does.

      200

      • #
        Dennis

        There was reference to coal mining in China on the television news recently and I was very surprised to learn how much coal China has and mines, and still imports coal.

        The Solomon Islands Government should be demanding “climate change” action from China instead of taking their money and demanding action from by comparison the tiny Australian coal mining industry.

        90

        • #
          David Maddison

          Yes. They mine and burn something like 10 million tonnes per day and are the worlds largest CO2 emitter.

          But no one seems to have noticed.

          100

          • #
            Dennis

            UN designated “developing nation”, a major beneficiary of the 1975 UN Lima Agreement signed by developed nations effectively to stand by while many businesses in manufacturing industry transferred to those developing nations, China now a US economy rival but UN IPCC still accepts the construction of coal fired power stations and emissions generally increasing every year by more than the total emissions from sources in Australia.

            Today our Federal Government MPs talk about national security and becoming self sufficient again in manufacturing, even encouraging the two remaining oil refineries to remain in production and to increase production capacity, but while that is a good objective the “horse” bolted after 1975 and was galloping away by the 1980s when import duties (tariffs) were abolished here with a couple of strong union employers exempted and retained protection, and by 1990 UN Agenda 21 -Sustainability and the numerous environment based bans and restrictions, regulations of red and green tape with compliance costs adding to business expenses, and more.

            Once again, with UN business Federal Governments sign treaties and agreements but State and Local governments legislate and regulate to enforce them and there never seems to be a time when cooperation and coordination between the States and Federal governments can be achieved.

            50

      • #
        Gary S

        If the left were to complain to communist China, they would only be talking amongst themselves wouldn’t they? That would certainly cause their heads to explode.

        40

        • #
          Dennis

          I can see in my mind’s eye the picture of PM Gillard of Union Labor standing on the Great Wall of China wearing a trench coat and with a fur cap on her head with a large red star on the front of it.

          The left side of politics I believe would happily accept vassal state implementation by China, many good reasons to support that belief and I know I am not the only one who has noted the reasons.

          50

      • #
        Ian

        David you write:

        But they(China) are allowed to mine and burn coal without limit or complaint by the Left, even though they are the world’s largest CO2 emitter.”

        The rules surrounding emissions and the countries that generate emissions class China aa a developing country because the WTO does not define a “developed” or “developing” country, nor does it have any benchmarks to determine which bucket its members fall into.

        It is entirely up to the individual members to self-allocate themselves to a group. The WTO also recognises the “least-developed” countries designated by the United Nations.

        The World Bank, however, defines a high-income country — or “developed” country — by setting the threshold for gross national income (GNI) per capita at $US12,055 ($16,900).

        Since China’s GNI per capita — at $US10,190 in 2020 — falls below the threshold, it could possibly argue that it is eligible for the status under this framework.

        But this definition is not binding or officially accepted by the WTO, and there exists no all-encompassing framework tied to soaring GDP or anything of the sort.

        According to the WTO, two-thirds of its 164 members — including China and India — currently consider themselves developing countries.

        Under WTO rules, developing countries are given special provisions, which includes longer time periods for implementing agreed commitments and measures to increase trading opportunities.”

        China has till 2030 before implementing agreed commitments and measures to increase trading opportunities.

        https://knoema.com/atlas/China/topics/Economy/National-Accounts-Gross-National-Income/GNI-per-capita

        17

        • #
          b.nice

          As David said.. Despite being the largest CO2 emitter and largest environment polluter in the world…
          … China get a free hand from the WEF, and from the greenie pseudo-environmentalist, and especially from the CO2 worriers.

          The greenie pseudo-environmentalists and the CO2 worriers should be complaining like the crazy that they are.. but they don’t !

          Thanks for confirming everything David said.

          40

          • #
            Ronin

            “The greenie pseudo-environmentalists and the CO2 worriers should be complaining like the crazy that they are.. but they don’t. ”

            And we all know why, don’t we.

            50

    • #
      el+gordo

      Origin Energy is only partly owned by Australians, not that there is anything wrong with that.

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-03/inside-eraring-power-station-coal-electricity/100953694

      30

    • #

      Peter,
      AEMO know nothing about the engineering problesm with wind C:/Users/Home/Documents/NREL%20WIND%20TURBINE%20RELIABILITY.pdf Nor do they know anything about big thunderstorms and what they do to solar and wind and of course neither do you

      80

      • #

        Peter,
        FROM THAT LINK: CONCLUSIONS
        The wind industry has reached a point where design practices for gearboxes do not result in sufficient life and Institutional barriers are hindering forward progress. A new approcah is needed to overcome these barriers and accelerate the development pf more robust gearbox designs. The Gearbox Reliability Collaborative initiated at NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) provides a fresh approach toward better gearboxs that combines the resources of key members of the supply chain to investigate design-level root causes of field problems and solutions that will lead to higher gearbox reliability.

        Whilst they acknowledge the problem they are oblivious to the facts of physics that you CANNOT DESIGN WIND TURBINES AND THEIR GEAR BOXES AGAINST VERTICAL SHEER. Which occurs under big thunderstorms when downbursts drive all the blades downwards at the same time. It cannot be designed against.

        140

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        its not april first anymore

        07

    • #
      David Maddison

      In case you are wondering where Leftists get their figures for supposed coal mining fatality rates they go here:

      https://endcoal.org/health/

      The figures appear entirely fabricated and bear no relationship whatsoever to reality.

      80

    • #
      TedM

      “dump toxic material into the soil, air and water, for the mirage of allegedly cheap power.”
      Perfect analysis of the form of power generation that you support PF. Well said.

      80

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        I wonder if Peter F. has a dim memory of the environmentalist who claimed the output of heavy metals (lead, cadmium, mercury etc) from coal stations would poison the soil for miles around. The claims were so preposterous that they were dismissed as if true it would be fatal so soon that no-one would be left living anywhere near a coal station would be dead very quickly.

        It turned out that his analyses were based on extracts from coloured plastic corks used on volumetric flasks. These were then extrapolated into nonsense.

        60

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          so for mining
          for coal power

          as usual I first research and then comment, which is very uncommon on this site, where assertions and ad homs predominate

          Fact is that environmentally Coal is a disaster

          To the mortality question, how many coal miners should be allowed to die to feed your toxic addiction.

          012

          • #
            Lance

            So, how many children must die to mine the cobalt needed for the Lithium batteries that are the basis of the renewable energy plan?

            Some 300 tons of mined tailings result for each ton of lithium.

            Fact is that the minerals required for the Transition to Renewable energy is Deadly, resource limited and unsustainable.

            Now, please tell everyone how to resolve your solution to an imaginary problem that is somehow sustainable, economical, practical and efficient.

            Yes, Please, Do that.

            50

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              No children should die, no adults either. you understand the idea of false equivalence, but yo continue to practice it.
              Fact – many more die from coal – but now you are saying if one dies from cobalt, then it is ok for one to die from coal. How do you pick them, is it a lottery, or do you just ask them if they are left or right leaning and kill the lefties.

              015

              • #
                yarpos

                Morale relativism I think they call that. Only a few die so thats OK cause it suits my argument.

                30

              • #
                b.nice

                “Fact – many more die from coal”

                A PROVEN LIE.. you mean. Very few die from coal mining nowadays.

                Many small children die and suffer badly from cobalt mining.. but of course.. you don’t care about that.

                And of course, wind turbines cannot be built without using coal, and gas, and oil, so all your imaginary problems from coal, oil and gas are exacerbated by the wind turbine industry, not to mention the horrendous environmental and economic and ecological damage that wind turbines cause in their short erratic, partially-operative, life time.

                70

              • #
              • #

                Just remember that “ice” is a noun.

                00

          • #
            Graeme#4

            If you have researched coal energy Peter, then surely you can explain exactly how coal energy pollutes the environment. So far it’s all baseless assertions from you.

            80

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              ive provided links, follow the red

              08

              • #
                b.nice

                Really old Chinese coal mine that didn’t have proper dust suppression.
                Small “possible” problems along road ways and in the mining area.

                Put that against the huge lakes of toxic sludge pumped out by the refining of Neodynium for wind turbine magnets

                Toxic lakes that are destroying everything totally and forever, for miles around.

                And then

                “Generally, the contamination levels of toxic metals except for Cd can be regarded as practically uncontaminated

                Oh dear, you really didn’t read them, did you !!.

                50

              • #
                b.nice

                And why link to a description of yourself.?

                We already know !

                30

          • #
            b.nice

            So, small amounts of dust particle at mine sites. Ok

            Orgainic content increases as nutrients from coal are added”.. Seems you didn’t read your links or didn’t comprehend, as usual…

            From the names of the authors, possible in India, where they are still trying to catch up with proper particle control at power stations.

            Wind turbine manufacture, on the other hand cause horrendous pollution where-ever they refine the magnetic materials with toxic chemicals, creating huge lakes that can never and will never be rehabilitated.

            Not to mention the deliberate destruction of forests, and wildlife where ever they are installed.

            And the horrendous after use pollution, massive burial sites for un-renewable turbine blades.

            Wind turbines are an ecological and economic disaster just by their very existence.

            You will choose to ignore that, of course..

            40

          • #
            b.nice

            Looked at Eraring power station on Google Earth

            Vegetation around it looks extremely happy. Why not, with all that extra CO2. ! 🙂

            30

    • #
      Peter C


      ‘AEMO has a more realistic view of the contribution of wind”

      Really?

      Disclaimer
      This document or the information in it may be subsequently updated or amended. This document does not constitute legal,
      market or business advice, and should not be relied on………….
      • make no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the currency, accuracy, reliability or completeness of the
      information in this document;

      50

    • #
      Paul Miskelly

      Peter Fitzroy,
      If you read page 10 of the AEMO report that you cite, you will find a highly sanitized statement that essentially states what Jo says in this article. Read the paragraph there about the increasing need to manage volatility as the penetration of intermittent renewables increases. How do they propose to manage it? They don’t actually say. They’re hopeful that some extra dispatchable reserves will, (magically?), appear. They hope that the short-term wind and cloud forecasting will improve.
      So, Peter, it’s would appear to be a case there of hiding the details in plain sight.

      Thanks, Jo for highlighting this issue now. You express it so much better than I did in trying to raise it in a paper back in 2012. What is somewhat surprising is that, if anything, the minima of these volatility swings in wind output are as deep now, in absolute terms, as they were back then, even though there are now many more of these ghastly things. Clearly, this volatility is inherent so is a problem that will not be solved by mere wishful thinking.

      Paul Miskelly

      80

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Yep, all true.
        If you also read the regulator’s report, you will see that those issues you highlighted are being addressed

        The report I linked also proves detailed information in wind which was at variance to the data used in this post

        09

        • #
          b.nice

          Come on then Peter..

          What extra dispatchable reserves will magically appear.?

          How will they fix their inadequate short-term wind and cloud forecasting.

          Even someone as gullible and mathematically inept as you, must realise by now that wind and solar will always need basically 100%+ back-up from reliable supplies.

          Get rid of those reliable supplies, and the whole grid collapses.

          Batteries can never cover that, you would need to increase coal and gas and oil just to manufacture them.

          The AEMO cannot continue to function properly on wishes and fairy dust, but its all they seem to have to offer.

          70

    • #
      another ian

      Wot? They worry?

      “China has 1,110 operational coal fired power plants. We have 19. But we cop shit from the UN etc.
      Sunday, 03 April 2022”

      https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2022/04/china-has-1110-operational-coal-fired-power-plants-we-have-19-but-we-cop-shit-from-the-un-etc.html

      30

  • #
    exsteelworker

    It’s to late for the gullible Western nations, this renewables madness is not going to stop. Even the EU executive yesterday warning the CCP on following WTO rules and not to help Putin still said renewables are the only way to go, same with the US Dumbacrats and our ALPCC/GREENS/ABC here. While at the same time the CCP, Russia, India, Africa ect ect ect build coal fired power stations.
    The stupid school teachers that encourage their students to strike for climate change won’t care because they will be to old when the clean up bill arrives.
    Sucked in kids, enjoy your trillions of tons of renewables waste future, and the humongous bill that you will be taxed to the hilt to pay. Bwahaha.

    181

  • #
    b.nice

    “The stupid school teachers that encourage their students to strike for climate change won’t care because they will be to old when the clean up bill arrives.”

    Actually, most of the kindy and primary teachers where this nonsense starts to be pushed, will be middle aged about when all the current renewables will need to be renewed. Their taxes will have to pay for the huge bill to do this. They will have to find a way of getting rid of all the old wind turbine blades, towers and concrete bases (oh wait, they will just leave those in the ground)

    Of course their will be no funding to do this tidy-up, so they will be left with an abundance of derelict wind turbines forever destroying their environment. And they will enjoy it as a monument to their gullibility and stupidity.

    190

    • #
      el+gordo

      Life imitates art.

      “I saw them now with a disgust that they had never roused in me before. Horrible alien things which some of us had somehow created, and which the rest of us, in our careless greed, had cultured all over the world. One could not even blame nature for them.” – Bill Masen, in “The Day of the Triffids”

      80

    • #
      exsteelworker

      (oh wait, they will just leave those in the ground)
      A dozen sticks of dynamite might make a dent in the millions of those derelict turbine concrete bases. I’m sure all those cute animals nearby won’t be hurt You can’t make the stupidity of the Greens blob up. They, the UN, IPCC, Politicians should all be held accountable when the proverbial hits the fan.

      100

    • #
      • #
      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Yep, 14,000 turbines sitting and whistling in the wind now too old to work.

        The company which guaranteed to demolish them has gone bust so they sit there as a constant reminder of our enslavement by the Elites.

        50

      • #
        another ian

        Broken wind used to be a description of a horse you ought not buy

        30

        • #
          b.nice

          Reminds me of whole family dinner conversation with my dear 90 year old mother, a “proppa” English lady…
          Everyone eating happily.. and suddenly she chirps up with.. ” oh dear, I’ve just broken wind. !”

          We all just collapsed in laughter.

          30

  • #
    Robber

    In the last 12 months, per OpenNEM, the lowest week for wind was July 4-11, 272 GWh, or an average of 1,620 MW MW, that’s 20% of nameplate capacity.
    And the lowest day, Apr 29, 17.3 GWh, or 720 MW, just 8% of nameplate capacity.
    And the highest week Jul 26-Aug 1, 702 GWh, or 4,180 MW, 48.6% capacity factor.
    So the reliable generators have to cope with these unpredictable variations in wind generation. At what cost?
    Tony from Oz does a great job of recording hourly, daily and weekly wind generation to demonstrate the unreliability of wind generators across the entire AEMO grid.

    Now add the unreliability of solar over the last 12 months.
    In the last week of June, solar delivered just 262 GWh, or an hourly average of 1,560 MW.
    And the lowest month was June, delivering 1,216 GWh, average 1,690 MW, while total average demand was 24,680 MW.
    Fortunately there were sufficient dispatchable generators available to keep the lights on.
    Not surprisingly, the biggest month for solar was December, 3,314 GWh, or 4,454 MW.
    But of course solar switched off in the evening, so dispatchable generators had to be ready to deliver to meet the evening demand.

    Now AGL has announced it is beginning the process of closing the first of four coal generator units at Liddell, taking 500 MW of dispatchable supply out of the grid by April 2023. Recently, Liddell has been delivering a reliable 1,300 MW, with all four units operating.
    AGL says to replace Liddell: “As part of the new energy hub, AGL has announced a memorandum of understanding with Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue Future Industries to explore green hydrogen, a 500MW grid-scale battery and a hydro power station.” “AGL earlier this year said it would also bring forward the closure windows for its other coal-fired power stations – Bayswater (2,600 MW) and Loy Yang A (2,200MW).”

    80

    • #
      yarpos

      500MW is “grid scale”

      Where? On King Island?

      10

    • #
      Paul Miskelly

      Robber,
      Well done for giving “TonyfromOz” a plug for all his work.

      As for AGL, I thought for a moment that you might have misspelled a unit.
      But no, you haven’t.
      You have correctly quoted their reports of a “500 MW battery” to replace one of the generators at Liddel.
      The problem is that a battery is not a generator. It can only store a charge.
      The usual unit used to describe a battery’s ability to store a charge, in the case of a large battery, is the MWh, or megawatt-hour.
      So, what does AGL mean by “a 500 MW battery”?
      Did their PR people, in making a genuine mistake in transcription, really mean 500 MWh?
      It’s a small, understandable, error, just leaving off a trailing “h”.
      But, that little “h”, pun intended, or lack thereof, makes all the difference:
      If the proposed battery is in fact rated at 500 MWh, then that means, under ideal conditions, from being fully charged, it might deliver 500 MW for one hour, maximum, then it is flat, empty, exhausted.
      That’s hardly a replacement for a generator that delivered 500 MW day in, day out, 24/7, 365 days of the year, less maintenance.

      So, where is AGL’s replacement generation for the unit it is taking out of service?
      If they cannot answer this question satisfactorily, then I suggest that the people and the government of NSW need to be very concerned, particularly as, it seems, this is what AGL plans to do progressively, with all of its coal-fired generation assets.
      The people of NSW are entitled to ask of the government of NSW: in permitting AGL to follow this strategy, how is the NSW government planning to avoid the scenario of widespread, frequent, unpredictable, blackouts?
      Yes, it really is that serious.
      Paul Miskelly

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Imagine if the dishonesty intermiient energy believers get away with when promoting a fundamentally defective and unfit-for-purpose product was allowed for anything else? There would be huge prosecutions and some might even be imprisoned.

    110

  • #
    David Maddison

    We are being deliberately starved of the life-blood of our civilisation, inexpensive, reliable energy.

    We are being returned to serfdom.

    150

    • #
      PeterS

      For us who are awake, that’s an truth statement that can’t be refuted. The rest of the people are asleep, don’t give a damn or actually are on the side of those instigating the return to serfdom. It ought not be a surprise there are a lot of people in the last category.

      40

    • #
      b.nice

      “We are being returned to serfdom.”

      That may well be the intent of the WEF/UN/bureacratic based push for unreliable, expensive electricity supply.

      In fact, its pretty close to their stated intent !

      110

      • #

        Speaking as a serf, we don’t like ém, As said, they don’t work when the wind don’t blow, or blows too much. And there’s the factor of extra energy needed to build and install huge steel wind turbines, energy needed for cabling and replacing the systems after 15 years, in the UK, a subsidy regulation. Then there’s the efficiency factor in back up generation. Steam Enhanced Gas Turbines, (CCGT,) are twice as energy efficient as Open Cycle Gas Turbines, (OCGT.) but because OCGT are better suited to rapid ramping, the less efficient technology becomes the preferred option as back up.

        Another thing…Wind technology is not so good for the environment either. We know about the noise… there’s more. Wind farms sure take up a lot of land, could be crop land. Off shore wind farms take up lots of space too…landscape and farming land. Then there’s threats to wild life? A 2002 study in Spain estimated that 11,200 birds of prey, some endangered species, 3,000,000 small birds, and as many bats are killed every year by wind turbines..turbines and power lines. No wonder Don Quixote, like us serfs, didn’t like them.

        130

        • #
        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Beth:
          The latest figures for gas turbines are 40% for OCGT and 62% for CCGTs. You can run CCGTs as Open Cycle mode but it increases the cost per MWh, increases CO2 emissions, and causes a lot of maintenance downtime due to thermal stress cracking etc.
          Curiously OCGTs have the same problems with on/off operation and that 40% figure is for continuous operation. Equally curious is that the CO2 emissions (per MWh) are higher than for the latest coal fired technology (China, India).

          And I would also point out that the Green fantasy of running gas turbines on “green hydrogen” are just that. Hydrogen burns at a very high temperature which results in turbine blade damage. And as a side issue results in nitric oxides but these are removed from the atmosphere (as nitric acid) by rain.

          30

  • #
    PeterS

    While the West keeps on gambling with renewables, Gazprom Halts Gas Shipments To Europe Via Critical Pipeline
    Surely to be consistent with the Western push towards net zero emissions, Western leaders should be praising Russia not castigating Russia. I think there is a term for people who blame someone else for their own stupid actions.

    40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Only if they don’t pay in rubles which they’ve said they won’t do. But Putin has allowed an escape clause they can pay the Gazprom bank in foreign currency which the bank will convert into rubles.
      They get the gas, Russia gets the foreign currency and Germany (& others) pretend they aren’t paying in rubles.

      30

  • #
    Custer Van Cleef

    This weekend, Paul Gigot (Journal Editorial Report on Fox) spoke to author Bjorn Lomborg.

    Just written this book:
    ‘False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet’.

    One point he made was about how Sweden imports tonnes of WOOD from the U.S. on diesel-powered ships, because it’s deemed carbon-neutral, when in fact it’s more troublesome (if you believe carbon emissions are bad) than importing COAL.
    He also talked about ‘unreliables’ like solar and wind power.

    Anyway, he sounded smart and articulate. I’m not getting a cut from his book, so check him out if you want to know more.
    Maybe you guys already know about this guy, but he’s new to me.

    50

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      The same applies to Drax in Yorkshire who import wood chips from the USA which causes their CO2 emissions to be 32-33% higher than with coal, but wood is classified as non-emitting whereas coal is penalised as ‘polluting’ and gets carbon taxed, so much so that they shut down 2 of their units as money losing until the current energy shortfall from wind which allowed them to operate (at much higher prices to the consumers).
      Wood is also burnt in Germany, Denmark and other countries. Finland and Slovakia are worried about being de-aforestated.
      And some years ago Russia was exporting over 1.5 million tones of wood chips into the EU. One third of that was small packs of plastic bags for household use (avoided the high cost of electricity).

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    If Australia had not literally thrown into the wind billions of dollars on useless windmills, the money could have been spent on actual useful projects like drought-proofing or flood-proofing the land “of droughts and flooding rains”.

    Surely someone has to be held accountable for what they have done?

    140

    • #
      Dennis

      Once again, as with electricity supply, water supply dams are State Government responsibility but Federal Government does or has partly funded projects by invitation or application from States. Planning approval for new dams is State powers and they own the public land on behalf of the people.

      In NSW, one example, during the period 1965 to 1976 a Coalition State Government identified and set aside a number of areas for new dams to be constructed in the future, by 1990 a Federal Labor Government signed UN Agenda 21 – Sustainability. The NSW State Labor Government at that time following Agenda 21 converted State Forests to UN registered National Parks and dams were banned including the areas set aside 1965-1976. Even now there is UN and Greens opposition to a plan to raise the main Sydney water supply Warragamba Dam wall.

      60

      • #
        David Maddison

        I made no comment about Federal vs State responsbility for these projects.

        In any case, it is a reasonable expectation that a PM can provide leadership and guidance to the states with respect to these issues, consistent with national objectives, whether the states follow it or not.

        Currently we have no PM to provide leadership.

        60

        • #
          Dennis

          State Governments in 2022, for example, WA, SA, VIC, QLD plus Territories NT and ACT, so which one would you expect to cooperate with the Coalition led Federal Government? Consider please the State Government legislated in State Parliaments and enforced by State authorities lockdowns and restrictions 2020-2022 despite the Leaders Cabinet, more precisely a Forum for discussion to achieve cooperation and coordination between governments, but Federal constitutionally unable to force States.

          30

  • #
    David Maddison

    With Australia’s pretend-conservative party and Labor absolutely committed to the anthropogenic global warming fraud the only hope is that conservative small parties can get the balance of power in the next election e.g. UAP, PHON, Liberal Democrats, Bob Katter etc..

    Don’t vote for the LibLabs, it only encourages them.

    90

    • #
      Dennis

      A problem, the “LibLabs” have no rival capable of forming a government, not even close. The minor parties largest are the Greens and they partner with Union Labor, at the 2019 Federal Election Greens preferences delivered 15 seats to Labor candidates. Voting for minor party candidates or worse the candidates masquerading as indepents despite being backed by the same organisation and only targeting LNP MPs are dangerous, the majority of voters do not understand the preferential voting trickle down preference vote lottery and often a candidate with the most primary votes loses to a candidate that if it was first past the post, most votes wins, could not win.

      50

      • #
        Ronin

        Possibly the best we can hope for is a ‘tail wag the dog’ scenario, trouble is the greens have a bigger tail.

        30

        • #
          Dennis

          Yes, the last published polls indicated Greens 7% compared to the other two 3% each.

          Combined 13% of the potential vote subject to the usual unreliable informants who don’t tell phone pollsters the truth.

          10

  • #
    David Maddison

    I think the rational thinkers of this blog should ask every believer in anthropogenic global warming they are unfortunate enough to meet, “Who is the world’s largest CO2 emitter?”.

    90

  • #
    Ronin

    If they think that building a battery onsite at Eraring to replace it will work, then it just goes to prove the numnuts behind this idiocy have no idea what they are doing, this will not end well for NSW

    130

    • #
      David Maddison

      this will not end well for NSW

      A major disaster like massive grid failure for an extended time and with many people dying as a result is the only way the Sheeple MIGHT wake up.

      90

      • #
        Robdel

        I have been saying that for years. When the lights go out there will be the devil to pay.

        50

        • #
          Lance

          Every nation on the Planet is exactly 9 meals away from anarchy.

          When the food stops or the lights go out, for more than 3 days, all social stability ends.

          This situation is the complete end of social order as currently imagined. All bets are off after 3 days.

          People will be killing each other over a ham sandwich or a bottle of water.

          40

    • #
      yarpos

      Has anyone said the proposed battery is replacing generation? Everything i have seen so far sounds like its just repurposing the site.

      00

  • #
    TedM

    “The true dismal story of wind power is that we need a near total second network of generators just sitting around waiting as back up. Since the back up is reliable, we could use them instead. As a bonus, backup power won’t kill birds, bats and hypnotize crabs and it won’t destroy sleep for farmers and spotted quolls, and it doesn’t create a national security risk either. Handy, eh?”

    The absolute truth of this statement, and the delightful satirical value in it’s composition, should make every wind power proponent cringe in shame.

    50

  • #

    Joanne mentions underneath her own graph that we cannot run the Country on an ….. average when it comes to electricity.

    How absolutely correct she is.

    When it comes to graphs, I have one as well.

    Average yearly wind generation versus average power consumption

    Huh!

    Who knew?

    Tony.

    190

    • #
      Lance

      Tony, That is one Beautiful graph.

      Thank you for your kind efforts. Illustrating the Truth in a comprehensible way.

      If only that one graph could be shown to every Australian, it would make a profound difference.

      80

      • #
        Muzza

        Lance, I’m not sure it would – due to the depth of the indoctrination/propaganda. Generations have been taught to disbelieve anything outside the narrative.

        30

  • #

    Jo
    I may sound negative here, but as climate change and Covid have shown. Logic is passe, facts mean nothing and the deluded Left are determined to enforce their pet ideas of green power and mass vaccination regardless of what the consequences are. They are immune to commonsense and sit in their safe spaces dreaming their demented dreams and forcing these nightmares on the rest of us.

    We need to keep on with the fight, but my view is that we have to have a complete collapse of the grid with all the huge problems that brings, and huge nos sickened and dying from dangerous vaxxes, it would seem, before people start to wake up to the enormity of the crimes being committed.

    Wind power is incompatible with our mainland grid and only works in certain circumstances (I believe some justification can be made with a Tasmanian set up of hydro and wind if properly done) and mass application is a complete waste and foolhardy.

    71

    • #
      yarpos

      True. The “RE” fanboy enthusiasts have lots of glowing anecdotes of alleged success, but in reality , non of it equates to a functional grid and none of it is widely deployable with positive impact. At best it fills a niche.

      20

  • #
    RickWill

    The true dismal story of wind power is that we need a near total second network of generators just sitting around waiting as back up.

    This understates the reality of intermittent power. The network required to support high penetration of intermittent that do not have substantial on-site storage is that the network has to increase by the inverse of the capacity factor. So a CF of 30% translates to a 3-fold increase in the network. The utilisation of capacity that network is quite low.

    Right now, consumers are paying extra curtailment costs to intermittent generators when system constraints cause curtailment of output. This cost increased $5M from Q4 2020 to Q4 in 2021.

    Estimated costs of VRE curtailment increased by $5 million from Q4 2020 due to greater curtailment impacts from non-system strength network constraints. Section 1.5.3 covers this in detail.

    This is only a small portion of the overall curtailment of intermittent because voluntary curtailment based on wholesale price is not paid for.
    From page 34.
    https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/qed/2021/q4-report.pdf?la=en

    Then there is the cost recovery from things like synchronous condensers and interconnector upgrades. These are just added to transmission charges that are an increasing proportion of electricity bills.

    Who has had a price reduction on their electricity bill in the past 12 months?

    In NSW, the wholesale and retail costs are just 20% of the cost of retail electricity. 60% of costs are transmission and distribution. You do not often see these costs.

    70

    • #
      RickWill

      In Q4 2021 intermittent generation set a new high average penetration of 34.9% of demand.

      The peak generation of intermittent was 61.8% of the demand. 32% of total generation during the peak output came from distributed solar (rooftops)

      Over the year from Q4 2020 to Q4 2021, rooftops added 600MW to average generation while coal declined 700MW.

      The international demand for and price of coal are driving higher bidding price for black coal generation.

      Without more batteries and upgraded distribution network, the current penetration of intermittent is close to saturation. Intermittents voluntarily curtailed 9.4% of their potential output and this will rise as it is displaced by rooftops that do not respond to wholesale price signals.

      If batteries and network upgrades cost nothing, the price of electricity would come down – sadly these items are expensive and will be an increasing proportion of electricity bills.

      Who has had an electricity price reduction in the past 12 months? Maybe price rises would be even higher if Australia had greater exposure to gas and coal prices.

      40

      • #
        Lance

        Lithium prices have risen 571% in the last 12 months. Factor that into the cost of batteries.

        An estimate was made for the US regarding energy storage for the statistical 24 days in which there is insufficient wind or sunlight. The aggregate battery cost was USD 400 Trillion. That was prior to the Lithium price increases, so it might be 2,000 Trillion USD.

        If the present cost of lithium at 5.71 times the cost 1 yr ago applies to EV batteries, then a Tesla battery just went from USD 13,500 to USD 77,085. Plus the labor to install it: USD 11,000. Yes indeed, do go buy an EV, you’ll save so much over buying petrol or Diesel (sarc).

        50

        • #
          RickWill

          An estimate was made for the US regarding energy storage for the statistical 24 days in which there is insufficient wind or sunlight. The aggregate battery cost was USD 400 Trillion. That was prior to the Lithium price increases, so it might be 2,000 Trillion USD.

          This displays an ignorance of optimising the system cost. The size of battery to meet a certain demand is dependent on the overbuild of the energy collection system. The capacity factor for the solar collectors for an optimised solar/battery system in Australia is in the range 7 to 10%. The battery needs around 48 hours of storage for the average demand if there is no fossil fuel support.

          10

  • #
    Damon

    If we have to use nuclear energy to keep the lights on (as seems likely), why not just use it? Why pretend that wind and solar are going to solve the problem?

    90

    • #
      OldOzzie

      A1B reactor

      The A1B reactor is an aircraft carrier nuclear reactor developed by the United States Navy. It is used in Gerald R. Ford–class aircraft carriers to provide electrical and propulsion energy. The A1B is the first naval reactor produced by Bechtel Corporation, which has “performed engineering and/or construction services on more than 80 percent of [land-based] nuclear plants in the United States”.[1]

      Aircraft carriers’ nuclear reactors provide the electrical and motor energy of the ship by splitting enriched uranium to produce heat and convert water to steam to power steam turbines. This process is largely the same as in land-based nuclear power stations, the most notable difference being the direct use of turboshaft power for turning the ship’s screws. Over decades of development several other design differences have emerged between naval reactors and the usually much larger power station reactors.

      As Navy planners developed requirements for the Gerald R. Ford class, they concluded that the A4W reactors that provide propulsion and electricity for the predecessor Nimitz-class aircraft carriers offer too little power for contemporary and anticipated future shipboard needs,[2] so they commissioned a new reactor from Bechtel.[1]

      The new reactor was named A1B, following the Navy’s reactor-designation scheme of type, generation, and manufacturer: A for aircraft carrier, 1 for the maker’s first reactor plant design, and B for Bechtel.[3] Two A1B reactor plants will power each Gerald R. Ford class ship.

      It is estimated that the total thermal power output of the A1B will be around 700 MWth, some 25% more than provided by the A4W.[4] Improved efficiency in the total plant is expected to provide improved output to both propulsion and electrical systems. Using A4W data[5] with a 25% increase in thermal power, the A1B reactors likely produce enough steam to generate 125 megawatts (168,000 hp) of electricity, plus 350,000 shaft horsepower (260 MW) to power the four propeller shafts.[6]

      The increased electrical generation capacity will allow for elimination of service steam on the ship, reducing staffing requirements for maintenance.[7] Also, the use of electrical aircraft catapults (EMALS) will free the ship’s air wing from reactor plant steam constraints, in comparison to the steam catapults used for launching aircraft on Nimitz class carriers, which relied on steam supplied by the nuclear reactor.

      The A1B reactor uses modernized technology that is both more advanced and adaptable than previous reactor technology, is smaller and weighs less than the A4W, and has operator interfaces that are expected to be improved as well.

      50

      • #
        OldOzzie

        How The U.S. Navy Remains The Masters Of Modular Nuclear Reactors

        You might be aware of the 98 or so commercial nuclear power reactors that produce about 20% of our electricity. But there are another hundred nuclear reactors that power 86 submarines and aircraft carriers, producing electricity, heat and propulsion.

        We think of small modular nuclear reactors as something new that will take nuclear power to a new level, and even marvel at the rollout of new iterations, like Russia’s new floating nuclear power plant. But in truth, the U.S. Navy has been operating and perfecting SMRs for 75 years. Work on nuclear marine propulsion started in the 1940s. In 1955, the first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus, put to sea. This changed submarines from slow underwater cigar tubes to warships capable of sustaining 20-25 knots submerged for weeks or months on end. By 1962, the U.S. Navy had 26 operational nuclear-powered submarines with 30 more under construction.

        Lately, Russia and China have developed floating nuclear reactors for remote or emergency use, and for use in super-large icebreakers.

        As Harry Degenaar pointed out yesterday, the floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov was connected to the grid, generating electricity for the first time in the remote Chaun-Bilibino network in Pevek, in Russia’s Far East.

        America’s Nuclear Navy is one of the oldest and largest nuclear organizations in the world, and has the world’s best safety record of any industry of any kind. In terms of work hazards apart from combat, it is safer to work on a U.S. nuclear submarine or aircraft carrier than it is to sit at a desk trading stocks.

        Thousands upon thousands of people, 22,000 people at any one time, have lived, worked, eaten and slept within a stone’s throw of these nuclear reactors for 60 years with no adverse effects from radiation at all.

        90

        • #
          OldOzzie

          Fact Sheet on U.S. Nuclear Powered Warship (NPW) Safety – 10 Page PDF from Japan

          1. Commitments of the U.S. Government about the Safety of U.S. NPWs
          2. Naval Reactor Plant Design
          3. Naval Reactor Operation
          4. Radiation Exposure to U.S. Personnel Associated with NPWs
          With the four barriers to the release of radioactivity and comprehensive shielding, U.S.
          Navy reactors are so effectively shielded and radioactivity is so controlled that a typical NPW
          fleet crew member receives significantly less radiation exposure than a person would receive
          from background radiation at home in the U.S. in the same period.

          5. Waste Disposal and Maintenance
          6. Impact on the Environment
          7. Environmental Monitoring
          8. Emergency Preparedness – Defense in Depth
          9. Potential for Release of Radioactivity during a Highly Unlikely Accident Scenario
          10. Emergency Planning
          As explained above, areas outside of U.S. Navy bases in Japan should not have to
          implement any protective action whatsoever, even in the highly unlikely event that some
          10 radioactivity escaped from the ship. Consequently, the U.S. Government considers that
          existing Japanese emergency plans for responding to natural and industrial disasters such as
          earthquakes and chemical transportation accidents are sufficient to deal with any highly unlikely
          event on a U.S. NPW.

          00

        • #
          Ross

          In fact submariners on those nuclear subs have lower overall radiation levels than their accomplices in surface vessels. Why? Because, water provides a shield from solar radiation. I think air stewardesses and stewards suffer the highest radiation levels of any one on earth. Maybe an urban myth, but I did read that once. 🙂

          30

    • #
      yarpos

      Because the political cycle is short enough that you can afford to pretend long enough to escape with your parliamentary pension.

      20

    • #
      OldOzzie

      Office of Nuclear Energy

      Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It’s Not Even Close
      MARCH 24, 2021

      Nuclear energy is America’s work horse.

      It’s been rolling up its sleeves for six decades now to provide constant, reliable, carbon-free power to millions of Americans.

      Just how reliable has nuclear energy been?

      It has roughly supplied a fifth of America’s power each year since 1990.

      To better understand what makes nuclear so reliable, take a look at the graph below.

      Nuclear Has The Highest Capacity Factor

      00

    • #
    • #

      Damon
      April 3, 2022 at 10:05 am · Reply
      If we have to use nuclear energy to keep the lights on (as seems likely), why not just use it? Why pretend that wind and solar are going to solve the problem?

      Because anyone advocating for Nuclear power is not going to gain votes from the majority of dumb voters who are currently empowered to elect our leaders .
      IE,..as usual ,..Political ambition takes priority over common sense or “doing the right thing” !

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    What is the objective of the windmillists?

    Just how many more of these things do they want to build?

    40

    • #
      Dennis

      In Australia applications for development have fallen in number since 2019 when the Morrison Coalition Federal Government announced that subsidies would end in 2030 and added company law legislation to force greater competition between all electricity supplier companies.

      50

      • #
        David Maddison

        Why are they waiting until 2030 to end subsidies? Why not stop them immediately as of 2019?

        50

        • #
          Dennis

          Have you managed a business David, and been involved in contractural law?

          Put simply, the subsidies if ended before contract periods ended would end up in court and most probably compensation from taxpayers for the loss.

          On the other hand publishing an end date for subsidies acts as a deterrent against new projects, a timing and potential revenue loss factor, and as many have mentioned remove the subsidies and question how many unreliable energy businesses could survive.

          50

          • #
            David Maddison

            Fair enough. I thought you were talking about new installations and new subsidies which should not be allowed to happen.

            40

  • #
    John Connor II

    I watched a video on uselesstube the other day about how Toyota is making hydrogen powered cars and their benefits over petrol and electric.

    This is a good infographic on hydrogen’s advantages:
    https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-hydrogen-city-how-hydrogen-can-help-to-achieve-zero-emissions/

    I think both solar and wind power will both go into the hall of fame for stupid ideas because of wishful thinking trumping actual viability. Advances in battery technology will be useful everywhere including EV’s before EV’s too fade away.

    41

    • #
      Lance

      Um…. No.

      Hydrogen is a net energy sinkhole. It costs between 1.65 and 2.12 times the energy contained in the H2 to make it, store it, ship it, and dispense it. This is “best case”. See pg 27 at https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/hyd_economy_bossel_eliasson.pdf

      Do you really think that storing H2 at 800 Bar is safe in a motor vehicle? What happens in a motorway accident, a giant hole in the motorway and a fireball seen for miles? Love to see what the vehicle insurance costs will be.

      Oh, yes, even if you use an H2 fuel cell and EV tech in place of an ICE engine, the fuel cell alone is some USD 30,000. If thieves steal common lead acid batteries and catalytic converters, how long do you think that fuel cell will remain?

      90

    • #
      another ian

      As Willis E said some time ago over at WUWT

      “THh problem with hydrogen is that it is pre-burnt – you can’t just go and open up a hydrogen mine”

      10

  • #
    Kevin Kilty

    Here is where this will end up. Years ago I was working at a school with an arrogant bully for a president and few lapdogs on its board of trustees — looked just like any current western government you’d care to name. The bully bullied staff, bullied faculty and students. He lied and lied and lied. No one would do anything about him. In fact, most people were advising that we had to accommodate him. I couldn’t take him any longer and one day I up and quit my job to run for the board. People tried to sabotage my campaign even. But a couple of days after I won the election he resigned and went away.

    Within two weeks you couldn’t find anyone at that school who would admit to having ever been an ally of his or supporting him in any way. They had all been brave resistors — even the people who accepted job advancements for being his toadies.

    In a few years the bubble known as “renewable” energy will burst and you won’t be able to find anyone willing to admit they ever advocated for it. How all those expensive monuments to stupidity known as renewable energy conversion facilities got built will be a complete mystery.

    Let’s hope it happens before we are either bankrupted or commandeered by folks with better judgment.

    150

    • #
      Ross

      You make it sound like Easter Island with all those stone human head monoliths looking out to sea. I don’t think anyone has yet come up with a reasonable explanation why they were built.

      20

    • #
      another ian

      And make sure that the Wayback Machine is still going

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    We know about the problems of windmill infrasound upon humans, but how does it affect livestock productivity?

    50

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Hi David,

      They use animal testing to simulate humans.

      This is just the other way around.

      So, I don’t think that the animals would be doing well.

      50

  • #
    Neville

    Just had a look at the King Island TAS hybrid system and as normal the Diesel generator was at 60% and TOXIC, clueless wind & solar + the battery were a joke.
    So why do our so called scientists, Engineers, pollies , MSM etc all BELIEVE in this OBVIOUS FRA-DULENT LUNACY?
    And wasting endless billions $ more under the delusional Labor / Greens donkeys will not change the climate or temp by a jot by 2050 or 2100. But we’ll certainly have a severely destabilised electricity grid FOREVER.

    https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/hybrid-energy-solutions/success-stories/king-island

    80

  • #
    Terrence

    Jo notes “The true dismal story of wind power is that we need a near total second network of generators just sitting around waiting as back up.”

    But it is much worse that that. We are building out solar to replace despatchable power, wind to backstop solar when the sun isn’t shining, batteries and pumped hydro to backstop them both when neither the sun is shining nor the wind blowing, and more grid stabilisation services and transmission infrastructure to patch them all together over increasingly vast distances. In our net zero nirvana, we will have tied up 4 times as much capital (roughly speaking) than we started with, to produce no more electricity, and to produce it more expensively and less reliably, with lots of demand-shedding.

    Our political class continues to puzzle why productivity growth is weak to non-existent, real per capital income growth is nugatory, and political life becomes ever more vexatious as all allocational choice becomes zero-sum.

    60

    • #
      Neville

      Yes Terrence and the TOXIC S & W lunacy on lasts for 20 years and has to be replaced FOREVER and so much buried in landfill.
      It must cost more than a new HELE Coal plant and the savings in co2 emissions would have to be marginal. And certainly we just stuff up our grid for ZERO change FOREVER.

      60

  • #
    Bradley Ashworth

    Reality bites. I haven’t seen any strong evidence how Australia (insert the world) will successfully transition from coal and gas.
    The advertising and cultural campaign has been brainwashingly compelling. Save the planet! Ok I am in. Now the hard bit. How!
    1) First step – cross your fingers that it will all be ok. Now jump off the cliff.
    2) Shut down coal – tick. (ignore the massive loss of export revenue- cost of business….)
    3) Replace coal energy production with… what?
    4) Wind/solar/battery backup?
    If this truly is the plan I haven’t seen it laid out. Where is the power generation/storage going to be located?
    It shouldn’t be that hard…
    Delete coal generation – thats around 500 Peta Joules annually.
    Solar/wind currently is 200 PJ annually.
    Now it gets tricky.
    It’s not as simple as building 3 times as much solar/wind as we currently have.
    Its a cliche but when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow….
    You need to store that baseload and that is the battery.
    A damn big one – or more correctly lots of damn big ones….
    Now in the meantime remember we have jumped off the cliff….
    The transition is underway….
    But to what?
    I have not seen a single coherent masterplan on how this is going to achieved.

    100

    • #
      Neville

      B Ashworth here again is Mark Mills talking about the TOXIC, delusional S & W + batteries disasters.
      And a transcript is available at this link. Why would any SANE govt even consider these frau-dulent money wasters and of course ZERO change to temp or climate by 2050 or 2100?

      https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-wrong-with-wind-and-solar

      60

    • #
      Ross

      I had hoped that Reality might bite when SA went dark a number of years ago. The Labor govt/Windies blamed the storm and the system which tripped, but we all know it was due to a lack of local base load backup. It was certainly that lack of local base load that prevented the system coming back quickly. Yet, since then the stupidity has just continued with continuing subsidies to both solar and wind nationally. What we need is a bigger state to go dark for an extended time. An adverse event like Texas in 2021, because people died when that happened. Maybe then politicians and bureaucrats might wake up.

      70

      • #
        yarpos

        Nothing that half a billion dollars couldnt fix ….as they paniced in the lead up to a summer election that tossed Weatherdill. Now they have gone back to the party that created that mess.

        40

    • #
      Ronin

      We can pretty well guarantee that every one of us will be forced onto a smart meter so they can flick us off the grid each time they get into trouble, just watch and mark my words.

      40

    • #
      another ian

      “The transition is underway….
      But to what?”

      It is actually called “Build Back Busted”

      50

  • #
    Neville

    I listened to Sky News Outsiders this morning and a leading Psychologist warned about the abuse of children’s minds through Climate change, the Covid pandemic, so called Gender uncertainty etc.
    It was terrifying to hear that in the US teachers sometimes talk to very young kids about “gender differences” and then tell them to not talk to their parents about it.
    Little wonder that Governor Ron Desantis has had a gut-full of these parasites and will do his level best to support the parents and go after these abusive creeps.

    140

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Evil is as evil does.

      90

      • #
        Neville

        Yes K. Keith but the damage done to some of these very young kids could take years of counselling and help before they may fully recover.
        But how are these creeps teaching young kids about idiocy like gender diversity anyway?

        110

    • #
      Dennis

      I also viewed that this morning and add to the concern my personal experiences, most recently talking to a thirty something years old mother who is a lawyer in practise who said don’t worry about power stations closing down because they will be replaced with batteries. She also is looking forward to buying her first EV.

      70

      • #
        MichaelinBrisbane

        Lawyers have a problem with Arithmetic. So they studied Law.
        Arithmetic is all you need for the logic to discredit the AGW myth.

        80

    • #
      yarpos

      The left in the US seem intent on messing with kids minds and bodies. It seem to be embedded in their way of thinking and something they seek to normalise.

      To me its about as low as a human can go.

      60

  • #
    Iain Reid

    It is unfortunate that the U.k. government and it’s advisors are now planning on a huge expansion of offshore and now onshore wind farms. Not only were they pushing renewables but have made the job so much harder by the electricfication of transport and domestic heating. The latter based on the false premise that heat pumps are significantly more efficient. This is based on coefficient of performance but omits all the lossess in generating and transmitting electricity.

    20

  • #
    another ian

    Putting electricity in a shoe box –

    The job of small modular nukes

    50

  • #
    Simon

    30% utilisation is not a problem when marginal cost and greenhouse gas emissions are zero. A resilient electricity network requires multiple generation sources.

    17

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Agreed. That is what we had. But I am glad you are in favour of (greenhouse gas emissions zero) nuclear.
      After all if Germany can rely on nuclear from France and Czechnia when wind doesn’t work and solar panels are buried in snow, why not use that?

      60

    • #
      b.nice

      CO2 emissions are not zero.. The amount of CO2 used in their production is about similar to the amount of emissions they save.

      Not that it matters anyway, because CO2 levels now and a lot higher are only beneficial to life on this planet.

      30% utilisation, is woeful, especially when its so erratic and unreliable.

      In fact, its basically useless most of the time, destroying grid stability and adding huge costs in the way of equipment to try and rectify that instability. Copious amounts of coal and gas and oil used in the manufacture of those items as well.

      A resilient electricity network requires multiple reliable generation sources.

      Wind and solar actually cause huge problems for the resilience of the grid.

      Purposely introducing unreliability into a previously stable grid system… only a monumental fool would do that.

      60

    • #
      b.nice

      ” marginal cost zero”

      Now you really are in fantasy land. !

      30

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Yes. That’s why most coal fired generators have four units.

      30

    • #
      el+gordo

      Simon, private investment is flooding into green hydrogen.

      https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/nsw-s-hydrogen-hub-attracts-eight-times-more-interest-than-expected-20220326-p5a891

      Could green hydrogen power generation replace coal fired power stations?

      02

      • #
        ozfred

        Hopefully to generate FERTILIZER?

        30

      • #
        b.nice

        No, creating the hydrogen will take more energy than it releases. That energy must come from somewhere, and there will never be enough wind and solar in Australia to do that.

        30

        • #
          ozfred

          As long as the creation of the hydrogen is suitable as a variable rate process, there will be installations of renewable energy that will be able to be used.
          And there are new processes which require less energy which are being “scaled up”.
          It won’t happen over night but if the overall cost is less than the current process cost, the existing systems will be replaced.

          10

  • #
    b.nice

    Europe.. As your sow.. so shall you reap

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/03/dark-winter-green-eu-states-activating-emergency-fuel-rationing-plans/

    “Energy analysts and government officials have warned that Europe could soon face rationing of diesel and natural gas.”

    This is what happens when you go down the “unreliables” route, and destroy your home-grown internal power supply systems.

    “They would rather impose rationing, hardship and suffering on ordinary European people, than admit the failure of their absurd green energy fantasies. “

    CO2 ignorance and “climate” zealotry… have a lot to answer for!

    40

  • #
    UK-Weather Lass

    In the late Eighties Scottish engineers were cleverly using wind power to pump water into reservoirs that could then be passed through generators once there was sufficient water present to produce local electricity. This was backed up by gas generators when the reservoir was too low. We all know how powerful water is when it falls and hydroelectric remains the best ‘battery’ we have. And there remains the problem – when are we going to see storage technology that is environmentally friendly and actually works as well as these earlier ideas? Three decades later there is little sign that the battery problem has been resolved not to mention the problem of keeping all that power quiet until it is needed.

    In the UK we seem to have lost a lot of experience at all levels of scientific and engineering endeavour to be replaced by people who have been taught a mantra and know that as long as they repeat that mantra over and over again their jobs will be safe … too few have whatever it takes to tell the truth and cause others to question what is going wrong. I see it in the computer industry too – hence all the rubbish climate models I guess.

    40

    • #

      Yes, hydro power and pumped hydro storage is a key component of most grid systems, providing either a significant base supply , Hoover dam, 3 Gorges, etc,…or critical “buffering”. of peaks and dips in demand, allowing base generators such as Nuclear and coal, to maintain efficient levels of operation.
      Hydro is a controllable, planned ,generation technology, unlike Wind and Solar.
      I really get annoyed when the Green lobby include hydro power production into their data showing the contribution of RE generation.
      Much as i understand how wrong the Snowy 2 decision was, and its justification a falseification of the facts, ..the principle is correct where the geology etc are suitable.
      Sadly , i suspect the legacy of Snowy2 and its financial blowout, may be to make other similar , but more practical projects , less attractive..

      20

  • #

    In German, the tidal flat is called Watt, same as the electricity unit.
    So the East Frisian people, always target for what ever mockery in Germany, when they need some “Watt”, for cooking or so, they go outside to the coast for a pailful of “Watt” 😀

    60