|
|
Millions of dollars will be burning on electricity tomorrow
With normal hot summer days expected tomorrow price spikes are forecast.
It’s not that hot
These are hot, but not unusual days for the capitals — Adelaide is forecast to be 41C, the other capitals are tame: Melbourne 33, Canberra 39 and Sydney 30. Though small inland cities are baking – like Albury at 44C.
South Australia could burn $36 million an hour
For South Australia tomorrow the AEMO is forecasting the state will need 2,800MW for 2.5 hours at $12,000/MWh. That could be $35m per hour. Note that forecasts in electricity often vary quite a lot from actuals. Looking at the truckload of cash being offered (from a generators point of view) will presumably bring in some extra supply and lower that price.
 Forecast prices for Jan 15th 2019 | AEMO
For Victoria, things are even worse
The AEMO is forecasting 9,000MW will be needed at $14,500/MWh for 3 hours. That’s $130 million per hour. Hypothetically, it would be an obscene $390 million dollars just to power the state just from 3 – 6pm. Enough to buy an entire gas fired power plant and have it sitting around all year waiting for spikes.
 Forecast prices for Jan 15th 2019 | AEMO For those peak hours, if it hits the price cap, spike pricing would be 400 times more expensive than baseload brown coal. The same $400m dollars could theoretically power the state for 50 days of non-stop electricity from brown coal stations like Hazelwood Power Plant (if only they hadn’t shut it). Though peak prices in midsummer are normally higher so it is not an apples to apples comparison. Note too: These are wholesale spot prices — there are other charges beyond this like the FCAS which will could rise tomorrow too. We are not even counting that.
It sounds outlandish but one two-day heatwave last year cost SA and Vic $400m dollars.
Could this week be the 2019 bonfire heatwave?
The AEMO has issued a LOR (Lack of Reserve) warning — Grade 2 for Victoria
There is a forecast LOR2 for Victoria in place at the moment. The AEMO says reserve available is expected to be 658MW but 978MW is needed. That’s 300 MW short. If the price is right (and it could not get more “right” without breaking the law) presumably there will be some new generation on offer. The availability and demand numbers can dance around a lot. This afternoon, the AEMO has issued two updates and curiously the situation has got worse with each update, not better.
But hey, it might be windier than they expect tomorrow, and then everything will be just fine.
UPDATE 10PM: Victorian LOR2 downgraded to LOR1. Expected reserve capacity now 1002MW. The required is 1090MW. The people in the control room must be very very busy.
TonyFromOz explains that all our available coal power is running flat out. The peak today (Monday) was 32,000MW.
Forerunner to tomorrow was the Peak today at 5PM. Total power generation (therefore total power consumption) was 32300MW. There are currently three coal fired Units off line, (one in each State still with coal fired power) so the total available coal fired power Nameplate is 19600MW. The total coal fired power being delivered at 5PM was 19200MW.
Add on natural gas fired power and the smaller Other sources, and the total CO2 emitting power on line delivering power at 5PM came in at 81.2% of that total. Hydro was at 12.2, and wind and solar power combined was delivering 6.6%.
And tomorrow, they say it will be even higher. Coal fired power is running at max already.
Hmm! Imagine if there was just one more coal fired power plant, umm, say even that ancient old clunker Hazelwood.
Take away coal fired power, umm, tell ‘em they’re dreamin!
Tony.
Bear in mind years ago the real system peak was 36,000MW. Now it appears we can’t do that unless we get lucky. It’s a good thing those car manufacturers and smelters shut down…
9.4 out of 10 based on 64 ratings
Look, another climate expert the BBC won’t be interviewing
Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books. He is just retired, and finally able to speak his mind. [Updated] …though he’s been a climate professor and a skeptic for some years, somehow the media didn’t beat a path to his door. He commented below that rather than staying silent til his retirement he has been skeptical for many years and was free to say so at his university (such a rare thing, how many other profs can we say the same about?). His University of Wisconsin site is here, and his statement here.]
The overblown and misleading issue of global warming
Washington Times
 Anastasios Tsonis The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life.
Lives are not at risk, but careers sure seem to be. Not medieval times but perhaps modi-eval?
So how many of the 97% of climate science believers are actually skeptics? Even after they retire there are lots of reasons for them to stay quiet. [Obviously, not the case for Prof Tsonis].
He’s willing to debate
Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.
All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics.
The models were wrong. If they can’t explain the pause, they don’t understand the cause. (h/t HockeySchtick for that phrase.)
All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.
My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.
Good on him for speaking out. Shame he didn’t feel he could when he was employed.
h/t Climate Depot and Pat.
***Edited headline to remove the incorrect “retires and”. Thanks to Prof Tsonis for commenting:
9.5 out of 10 based on 133 ratings
When cheap solar is expensive
Badly installed solar PV makes Australia’s grid fragile
On August 25 last year there was nearly a system blackout when, improbably, three states of Australia were islanded by one lightning strike. Within seconds, trips were switching, two smelters were load shed to save the grid from collapse, and across the Eastern Seaboard of Australia frequency and voltages surged or fell everywhere. In Sydney 45,000 homes lost power for a couple of hours. Shops had to close. Trains were stopped. Passengers were stranded. Traffic signals were not working on major roads. There was chaos. Industrial users shut down in a mass of 725MW of load shedding.
The AEMO final report on that day has just come out and shows us just how fragile our grid is. This was not so much a freak accident, as an accident waiting to happen.
It turns out that another cost of cheap rushed solar panels is that many drop out with voltage spikes, suddenly going offline and leaving another hole to fill. The numbers are amazing — of panels installed in the last 2 years as many as one-third in South Australia dropped out when we needed them and about 1 in 6 failed in Queensland.
If smelters are offline, hundreds of thousands of dollars are burning, and millions is at risk…
 … Obviously the true costs of installing solar panels properly are higher than advertised. When we add up the lifetime cost of solar does it include loss of earnings of unrelated businesses?
August outages underline risks to the reliability of the national grid
Perry Williams, The Australian
The Australian Energy Market Operator said several generators failed to respond as expected including “counter-productive responses” that could have been limited or prevented if sufficient frequency control settings were enabled in each region.
While Tesla’s giant battery was praised for helping to stabilise frequency, four unnamed wind farms in South Australia reduced their output to zero because of incorrect settings while solar rooftop systems also crashed out and were unable to assist in boosting supply to either Victoria or NSW.
AEMO detailed how 15 per cent of sampled solar systems installed before October 2016 dropped out during the event. Of those installed after that date, nearly a third in South Australia and 15 per cent in Queensland failed to meet standards.
 For the next hour frequencies rocked all the way from Queensland to Victoria …
 Spikes and struggles on the line between SA and Victoria Crash Test Dummies are here
Australia’s shift to renewables is ramping up:
The rapid switch to renewables is having a profound impact on the grid, with solar generation jumping by 38 per cent in the three months to September while wind grew by 16 per cent, displacing gas from the grid’s power mix.
From the AEMO report: There has been a decline in system resilience.
Keep reading →
9.4 out of 10 based on 60 ratings
Australia Wins The Global Patsy Award 2019
The Brookings Institute released a report that claims everyone is better off economically by sticking to Paris, but check out the devastating graphs. Economically, everyone is a loser, but the three biggest losers are Australia, Russia and OPEC.
Australia is doing more, paying more, suffering more and yet will make almost no difference to the global emissions tally in anything other than a purely symbolic impress-your-dinner–guests kind of way.
If Australia left the Paris Agreement, even the left leaning Brookings Institute can’t find much difference in total global man-made emissions. Australia is forcing the renewables transformation faster than anywhere else, it will lose GDP, wages, jobs, investment, and the dollar will fall. All that, and no one could even tell the difference between Paris with Australia, and Paris without.
Clearly Australian negotiators at the UN are incompetent on a whole new scale. If they had Australian’s interests at heart, even a little bit, they would have done this study themselves, and gone to Paris with some realistic comparative data to argue that we are cutting too fast and paying too much. Finalists for most useless Global Negotiator of the Decade are Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop. Wayne Swan, treasurer of the year, deserves a mention.
Australians basically walked in to Paris and said “hit me”.
Don’t miss these fun graphs:
Bad news for the Australian dollar:
 Change in exchange rates thanks to the Paris Agreement
Who needs Trade balance anyway?
At least our falling dollar will help to stop Australians importing so many goods.
 Change in trade balance thanks to the Paris Agreement. Spot the difference: If Australia left The Paris Agreement the world not even notice
Theoretically, this graph below shows how much global emissions would be reduced should the unthinkable happen and everyone actually met their Paris promises. The lowest red line is the glory of Paris “success” with Australia included.
The dashed line on top of that is Paris success if Australia bailed. Exactly.
 Theoretically, this is how much emissions will be reduced if every nation sticks to the Paris agreement. Despite the title on the graph above, this is not Global CO2 emissions at all which are around 750 billion tons. This, obviously, is the insignificant man-made part.
Go on, let’s add Global Emissions to the scale…
Everyone’s economy will shrink
Less energy means less economy.
Three regions will be the worst hit — Australia, OPEC and Russia.
 Change in GDP relative to business as usual without all that virtue signalling. Large drop in jobs coming
Whichever way you look at it, jobs are going. Just that in Australia they’re going faster. We apparently outdo the rest of the world til Russia (allegedly) catches up. Then some magical assumption happens in 2021. (Trump becomes our PM, perhaps?)
 Whichever way you look at it, jobs are going.
Notice no country on Earth will get richer because of Paris
Australians are getting rid of evil capitalist wages faster than anyone, though apparently OPEC puts on a good finish in the race to the bottom.
 Change in CO2 emissions, Paris Agreement, 2019. Graph. The three biggest losers of wealth — Australia, Russia and OPEC
This graph says something.
 Change in CO2 emissions, Paris Agreement, 2019. Graph.
Australians will be consuming less, are you looking forward to that?
Did I mention rubbery figures?
The researchers do some serious economic-number-mashing, converting everything into a carbon tax.
From the Brookings Institute press release:
[The researchers]… use a multi-region model of the world economy to analyze the economic and environmental outcomes that are likely to result from these [Nationally Determined Contributions] NDCs. To construct the modeling scenario, the authors convert the disparate NDC formulations into estimated reductions in CO2 emissions relative to a baseline scenario with no new climate policies. They then solve for the tax rate path on CO2 in each region that achieves the NDC-consistent emissions reductions in the target year, 2030 for most regions.
Then funny things happen where the carbon tax they calculate bears little relation to the actual emission reductions. Could it be because a tax on a universal molecule essential to life is a stupid economic idea? Some of the players won’t respond because energy needs are inelastic, and most of the players won’t respond because they are blue-green algae, or otters, or E.Coli. And some of the players who do respond pick windmills and solar panels for reasons which defy any economic or scientific analysis.
Comparing projected 2030 CO2 tax rates to the same year’s percent emissions abatement relative to baseline, the authors find that declines in CO2 emissions do not necessarily correlate with the CO2 tax rate. For example, under Paris, Japan’s emissions decline the most of all regions, but its CO2 tax is the fourth lowest at about $US 16 per ton. India and the United States share a common goal for percent reduction of emissions relative to baseline, but India’s tax rises to about $US44 per ton in 2030, about 70 percent higher than the $US 26 tax in the United States in its target year of 2025.
Rubbery figures meet Rubbery assumptions
— The Australian:
The paper assumed a government-introduced $5-a-tonne carbon tax from 2020 — which neither the Coalition nor Labor has foreshadowed — to cut Australia’s carbon emissions by a promised 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.
Now lets pretend there are benefits from cutting CO2
Santa Claus says reducing an airborne fertilizer is a benefit they can put a hundred billion dollar figure on.
And this comes from the Brookings Institute – friends of Big Government. Imagine if sensible independent engineers wrote it?
 Australia is irrelevant. Whatever happens: It’s gonna cost you
At least Warwick McGibbon is honest telling us that economic pain is inevitable. Furthermore he admits that if you just care about jobs and wages not the climate, you’d quit Paris.
Warwick McKibbin, an ANU economics professor and one of the report’s authors, said Australia could not avoid economic pain by pulling out of the agreement.
“If we stay in, we’re better off because if we pull out, we’ll still be getting most of the economic damage — other countries won’t be buying our resources so much — but miss out on the benefits of curbing carbon emissions such as less pollution,” Professor McKibbin told The Australian.
“You don’t have to believe in climate change at all to support staying in Paris. That said, if you just cared about jobs or real wages but didn’t care about climate or pollution, you’d stay out.”
— The Australian
He sings an ode about beating the mythical pollution ogre. Even if CO2 actually caused much warming, Australian emissions are irrelevant, CO2 is a well mixed gas, and there is a very substantial benefit, thankyou, in raising CO2 on a dry agricultural nation.
Frank Jotzo, Professor at ANU in Climate Policy tweeted:
Paris Agreement modelling by @WarwickMcKibbin and colleagues: meeting 2030 emissions targets to yield net economic benefits to individual countries (before taking into account avoided climate change damages)
No mention by him that Australia got one of the worst deals globally. It’s not like he is supposed to be serving The Australian Taxpayer.
Academics, we can’t sell them fast enough.
Hat tip to Pat
REFERENCE
Liu, McKibben, Morris and Wilcoxen (2019) Global Economic and Environmental Outcomes of the Paris Agreement” (PDF), Brookings Institute.
9.7 out of 10 based on 58 ratings
…
9.5 out of 10 based on 14 ratings
Go on. Prove how much you love the planet, or maybe just outdo the Jones’s and get yourself a $2,000 automatic designer cat door that is draft free, radio controlled and evens opens the door for the cat in case your cat is intellectually challenged.
How many storms will this cat door prevent?
This story was first reported on CBC by Greg Rasmussen. What else are public broadcasters for?
Sometimes being energy conscious can mean geeking out on gigawatts, or studying the latest heat exchanger technology. But in this case, it involved splurging on a $2,000 cat door.
The super-insulated, radio-frequency-controlled designer cat passageway is one of many energy saving features in a super energy efficient house being built in West Vancouver.
I thought climate warriors weren’t supposed to have a cat?
Just three million dollars to build a passive “net zero” house:
Costing about $3 million to build, it’s not far out of line in pricey West Vancouver. James said he kept close watch on the extras and said it only cost about 4 per cent more than it would have to build a similar home that meets existing building codes.
They didn’t want the dingy small windows common to “passive houses”. So they got large windows, even floor to ceiling windows. And then they flew these floor-to-ceiling, triple glazed windows across the Atlantic:
… the huge triple glazed windows had to be brought in from Europe because no one could supply them locally.
Wonder what the lifetime emissions are on that?
Note the fine print:
“We’re going to be what’s called net zero energy, so we’ll generate more electricity over the year, and sell it back to BC Hydro, than we use,” said Dean
What he really means is that they will be 100% dependent on the Grid to be there when they need it.
Net freeloaders on the system?
The designer cat door is apparently a “PetWalk” one.
I fear it’s going to lead to mental health issues in Pets:
Within the same household, different pet’s chips can be set to different programs. So if, say, one of your dogs or cats needs a bit more exercise, you can program the door to let one pet back inside but not the other. This may seem either unfair treatment or a brilliant solution to pet obesity and indolence, but the people at Petwalk feel that it’s something pet owners might like to control.
First world problem.
10 out of 10 based on 53 ratings
Tony Abbott won a 90 seat landslide based on a blood oath to Axe The Carbon Tax. In 2014 he was thwarted in the Senate from instigating his plans to clean out the green-machine burden, largely by Clive Palmer and cohort, a coal explorer and senator who was a skeptic til Al Gore visited the week before key legislation was voted on. The people who voted for Clive sure didn’t vote to bankroll the Renewables Industry but that’s what they got, and thanks to the Australia Institute we can see just how much the turncoat cost — about $1,000 per person.
The Australia Institute is suddenly raving about the value of crossbench Senators — especially the ones who did the opposite of what their voters expected — “yay”, democracy. Then they’ve paired it with the release of a nothingburger survey that asked the wrong people no relevant or specific questions so the Institute could pretend Australians approved of the sell-out Senators who wasted $23 billion dollars on a pagan weather-changing plan. Do you like the Senate, then you love Renewables? Cheers Jiminy!
Is the Australia Institute a research group or a PR Agency for Renewables?
How the Senate crossbench saved Australia’s renewable energy industry
The Abbott Government’s attempts to abolish key renewable energy policies were foiled by Labor and the Senate crossbench. These efforts have supported $23.4 billion worth of clean energy projects during a period that saw renewable investment fall by up to 48% in some years.
Bravo. Crossbenchers saved an industry which investors were running away from. Why? Because it was A/ an efficient provider of a valuable service and investors were stupid or B/ because no one wants overpriced, unreliable power?
Hmm.
Between 2013 and 2016, the Coalition Government attempted to abolish Australia’s three key renewable energy policies: the Renewable Energy Target (RET), the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).
These three policies were saved in the Senate….
As a result, the CEFC continued financing, ARENA continued providing grants and other assistance and the RET continued encouraging renewable energy generation. In total $7.8 billion in government support has been provided to projects worth $23.4 billion, as shown in Figure 1:
| Figure 1: Total clean energy support saved by Labor and crossbench (2013–2018) |
|
| . |
Funding and investment ($m) |
Total project value ($m) |
|
| CEFC investment |
$6,652 |
$19,000 |
|
| ARENA grants |
$1,187 |
$4,371 |
|
| Total |
$7,839 |
$23,371 |
|
In addition, the RET has assisted the installation of 806,000 solar panel systems and 226,000 solar hot water systems between 2013–2018 and the generation of 85m MWh of electricity from large-scale generators. Saving the RET and CEFC has resulted in emissions reductions of at least 334m tonnes CO2-e. This is more emissions reduction than the government’s policy, the Emissions Reduction Fund, is likely to deliver over its six years of operation (92m tonnes from its creation in 2014 to 2020)
By contrast, the Emissions Reduction Fund is estimated to abate 192m tonnes, of which about 92m tonnes will be abated between its creation in 2014 and 2020, and the remaining abatement happening after 2020.37
Renewable energy subsidies; Six times as useless
So the $23 billion dollars used by the crossbenchers saved 334m tonnes of CO2 (equivalent) at a cost of $70/ton.
The Emissions Reductions Fund cost $2.29 billion and will save nearly 200 million tons at a cost of $12 per ton which makes it six times as effective. And if you believe reducing CO2 is important, Tony Abbott’s plan could save six times as many environments.
The $23 billion dollar gift to the renewable industry thus wasted 83% of taxpayer funds — a cool $19.5 billion dollars that could have been used to help the poor or the spotted quoll, but was instead wasted propping up a freeloading industry that makes electricity more expensive, drives other industries away from Australia, and probably loses 3 jobs for every one it creates. On the upside, Australia saved 334m tons of CO2 — equivalent to five weeks of emissions from China.
The senate sell-out cost every man woman and child in Australia about $1,000. Babies too. That’s $4,000 per family of four. That’s a family holiday the kids will never forget, because it didn’t happen.
During Tony Abbott’s time as PM renewable energy investment returned to “a free market” and fell by half:
In 2014 and 2015, while worldwide investment in the sector grew, Australian renewable energy investment fell by half. If the Senate crossbench had failed to save the CEFC, ARENA and RET, the decline would have been much greater and the rebuilding of the industry much more difficult. The future of Australia’s renewable sector was saved by the (cross) bench.
The decline of renewables would have been greater, but so would Australian wallets and in so many ways. The Australia Institute obviously approves of governments interfering in the market, and picking winners (or rather “picking losers, but calling them winners”.)
They even admit the Senators largely betrayed their voters:
Having been typecast as ‘conservative’ or ‘right-wing’, the new minor parties on the crossbench were widely expected to vote with the Abbott Government – and, indeed, Day and Leyonhjelm proved to be fairly reliable votes for the government. But Xenophon, Wang, Lambie, Lazarus, Muir and Madigan, along with the Greens, ensured that the Senate crossbench served as an important check on the government’s power.
Palmers team (bolded) didn’t so much serve as an “important check on the governments power”, but as an check on voters power. Not that The Australia Institute shows much concern. After the Palmer 2014 sell out, it appears half his voters voted for other people and the Palmer team (such as it wasn’t) won nothing ever again.
The Australia Institute didn’t ask Palmer’s voters what they thought, because they already knew the answer. Instead they asked other voters generic questions about the Senate and whether it was useful and what color their seats were. ( Seriously, 40% knew the Senate seats are red). Hence the Australia Institute got a headline that bore no resemblance to reality by asking no questions about the carbon tax or any issue relevant to their press release.
Spot the bait and switch with the word “which”:
Majority of Australians support Senate crossbench, which saved $23b of renewables from Coalition cuts
The ‘Saved by the bench’ report is being released in conjunction with Australia Institute polling* which shows that a majority of Australians believe the country is better off because of the Senate and that better laws are created when the government has to negotiate with other parties
It’s great PR for the renewables industry but not so great for Australians who had $1000 stolen.
The Australian Institute paper mentions no conflicts of interests nor donors. But with a $23 billion dollar carrot swinging through Australian Industry, there is potentially a nice river of tax-funded flowback that could have come their way. Who knows? That’s an awful lot of profits that are far more dependent on the mood of Parliamentarians than on providing something their customers need at a price they are willing to pay.
h/t Pat
REFERENCE
Saved by the bench, The Australia Institute, Dec 2018
CER announces eighth Emissions Reduction Fund auction results, 18 December, 2018
Global Carbon Project (2018) Carbon budget and trends 2018.
9.7 out of 10 based on 72 ratings
…
8.8 out of 10 based on 24 ratings
 Paid by the people to give them the facts, Clive Lewis is proud that he deceived them and delivered a message that served his own interests rather than theirs. From a Jan 2018 story by Amanda Cashmore For Mailonline:
“Clive Lewis admits broadcasting biased news“:
In 2017 Lewis admitted to biased reporting whilst working for the BBC. At a Momentum rally he stated: “I was able to use bias in my reports by giving less time to one than the other. I reported on both but the angle and words and the language I used — I know the pictures I used — I was able to project my own particular political positions on things in a very subtle way.“
This is clearly in breach of the spirit, ethics and whole point of the BBC. Did he think the people of the UK needed his wise but hidden counseling because he’s been born so much smarter than everyone else.
Naturally, we know where people struggling with reality end up in the climate debate. This is Clive Lewis, Jan 1 2019:
Politicians must persuade consumers to make dramatic lifestyle changes if devastating climate change and mass extinctions are to be averted, according to … Clive Lewis.
And we know where public broadcasting reporters go for their next job — The Labor Party. Clive Lewis is now their MP for Norwich South and the the shadow Treasury minister. He’s helped Jeremy Corbyn and is touted to become Shadow Secretary of State for Defence or as Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport should the Labor Party win. Lord help the UK.
It’s exactly this kind of admission that shows why public broadcasters are The Swamp. Where was the outrage?
UPDATE: Commenter Greg says”… but everyone is biased”.
Jo replies: Everyone has biases, but there used to be a time the media would strive to overcome them. If a BBC reporter was called biased, that was embarrassing. Now, every little narcissist is openly biased and proud of it. As if it’s noble to put their own spin on the story while they pretend to be neutral.
How’s the ethics work? One political party get a dedicated propaganda outfit paid for by the public dollar and disguised as non-partisan.
Sell public broadcasters now. Give the money back.
h/t Pat (PS Pat, meant to say thank you for your lovely card which I got just before Christmas, Merci!)
9.8 out of 10 based on 88 ratings
MIT researchers think they have solved a bit of a mystery regarding Sahara dust, but if they’re right it means the Sahara Desert has already come and gone 3 – 5 times since humans walked the Earth. The Sahara is the largest desert on Earth, and this would be the largest and longest drought “ever” on the planet (as far as we know).
UPDATED: Commenter Javier points out these drying cycles were known years ago. (See below)
This would rather redefine the whole idea of “climate change” — 3.5 million square miles of Green Sahara turns into Dust-bowl Sahara — and it’s all thanks to sunlight. The drought doesn’t just last 7 years, but more like 7,000. And it’s happening over 9 million square kilometers, an area larger than Australia. The major climate models leaned towards the monsoonal cycle, rather than the longer ice age one. So this theory may have resolved one of the 495 contradictions in climate models. Or not. But the bigger message here is that the sun causes climate change and on a massive scale.
h/t to Roger Tallbloke.
The Sahara is the largest dust bowl in the world, dumping 10 million trucks of dust across North Africa and the Atlantic Ocean. The dust can end up as far away as Florida. People tracked the layers of this dust before but thought the highs and lows were driven by ice-ages on a 100,000 year cycle. This new work took a closer look at the layers on the ocean and say they see 20,000 year cycles, which fit with cycles of solar insolation (meaning the strength of sunlight as the Earth rolls around on its axis). It sounds like a long bow figuring out whether there were trees and rain in the Sahara based on layers of dirt on the ocean floor, so keep our skeptical hats on. It could turn out to be wrong. But then again, they are looking at 240,000 years of mud and it fits better with other proxies too, so it has some redeeming features.
 solar insolation,Graph, Saharan dust.
Monsoons vary with the solar insolation, as does the level of the Nile River and other stuff:
Keep reading →
9.3 out of 10 based on 67 ratings
…
9.7 out of 10 based on 13 ratings
It’s summer, so the BoM and ABC can’t help themselves.
 Albany, Hottest Town in Australia Last week Marble Bar “hit an all time record”. This week, it’s Alice Springs. But the Australian BOM still haven’t used their own fabulous World Class ACORN Temperature data to find the hottest day ever in Australia. They’re still telling people it was in Oodnadatta, on Jan 2nd in 1960, but even dumb deniers know that according to ACORN temperatures hit 51.2C in Albany in far south WA in 1933.
[Marble Bar Dec 28th, 2018] The high temperature occurred at 12:39 pm local time. At that stage, it appeared Marble Bar could crack 50 for the first time — and perhaps even threaten the all-time Australian record of 50.7 in Oodnadatta, South Australia.
Chris Gillham pointed this out the strange anomaly of the cool coastal town that was hotter than a million square kilometers of desert, but four years later the BOM still haven’t resolved the situation. The 51.2C temperature is still there in the data, but the Top Ten Highest Temperature Records remain exactly the same. Is Albany, or is it not, the true record holder? Or is it that the ACORN adjustments are overwrought, unjustified fandangaling, that ignores 8 lane freeways, and brick walls and has errors so big they can be seen from space?
| State |
Temperature (°C) |
Date |
Place name |
Station no. |
Latitude |
Longitude |
| SA |
50.7 |
2 January 1960 |
Oodnadatta Airport |
17043 |
−27.56 |
135.45 |
| WA |
50.5 |
19 February 1998 |
Mardie |
5008 |
−21.19 |
115.98 |
| NSW |
49.7 |
10 January 1939 |
Menindee Post Office |
47019 |
−32.39 |
142.42 |
| Qld. |
49.5 |
24 December 1972 |
Birdsville Police Station |
38002 |
−25.90 |
139.35 |
| Vic. |
48.8 |
7 February 2009 |
Hopetoun Airport |
77010 |
−35.72 |
142.36 |
| NT |
48.3 |
2 January 1960 |
Finke Post Office |
15526 |
−25.58 |
134.57 |
|
48.3 |
1 January 1960 |
Finke Post Office |
15526 |
−25.58 |
134.57 |
| Tas. |
42.2 |
30 January 2009 |
Scamander |
92094 |
−41.46 |
148.26 |
These records not only ignore their own ACORN super high quality data, they also ignore measurements from Observatories too. In 1939 the Windsor Observatory recorded 122F or 50.5C. Even further back in 1909 the BOM had a Stevenson Screen at Bourke Post Office which recorded the monstrous 125F or 51.6C. But that record didn’t count because it was done on a Sunday.
The big question, (apart from why the BoM is so incompetent), is why the hottest ever days in Australia all seemed to occur back when CO2 levels were perfect. This is even after the BOM accidentally boosted all the modern temperatures by switching to electronic thermometers. These accept one-second long heatwaves that no old style thermometer could possibly detect. Not surprisingly, electronic thermometers all over the country have set new records with every gust of a 737.
Despite this huge advantage, the old temperatures are still beating out the new ones.
As for the Alice Springs record of 45.6C yesterday, I note that Alice Springs Post Office in on Jan 14 1883 recorded a whole degree hotter, 46.7C. That’s 136 years of global warming for you.
9.4 out of 10 based on 83 ratings
South Australians have so much wind power, too much, that in Quarter 3 last year the AEMO had to intervene to cut off excess wind and solar generation. Ever since the Great Blackout of 2016 new rules mean that there must be enough back up power running to cope with the fickle vagaries of intermittent energy. (Obviously, this wasting of sacred green electrons wouldn’t need to happen if people weren’t so persnickety about blackouts!)
This graph is from the Quarter 3 AEMO report for 2018. It is technically about both wind and solar, but it appears to be mostly wind. Solar is not a star player in Q3 because it’s winter.
Would we put up with any other industrial output that had such a dismal performance. Imagine this was your car….
 AEMO Quarter 3 report page 7 Synchronous generation is the kind that comes from machines that spin at 50 Hz (like coal, gas, hydro, nukes). These keep the system stable. Happy happy hertz.
But ten percent of all the wind and solar power had to be thrown away in SA because there wasn’t enough reliable back up power to guarantee the stability of the system.
During Q3 2018, total curtailments of non-synchronous generation (large-scale wind and solar farms) in South Australia increased to around 150 GWh (or 10% of South Australian non-synchronous generation) (Figure 6), with curtailment occurring for 26% of the time during the quarter. This was the highest amount on record and around 70 GWh higher than the next highest quarter (Q3 2017). Key drivers were record high wind generation (Section 1.3.4) and insufficient synchronous generators being available to meet system strength requirements.
The reliable generators had gone home for the day (so to speak) because they couldn’t make enough money in a screwed market where intermittent and unsynchronised electricity is preferentially subsidized. So in order to make up for the damage done by a subsidy designed to drive fossil fuels out of business, we added another subsidy to keep them running. As you would.
The extra subsidy to counter the first subsidy cost $7m that quarter.
We may have the illusion of free market competition but increasingly the government controls more and more of the industry.
“Fascism is an economic system in which the government controls the private entities that own the factors of production.” Antifa, where are you?
Keep reading →
9.7 out of 10 based on 71 ratings
Best wishes to everyone for 2019.
Back at the desk soon!
9.9 out of 10 based on 53 ratings
…
8.8 out of 10 based on 28 ratings
It’s serious folks: If you use models that don’t work, extrapolate, exaggerate, and spin the runes properly, at worst, man-made climate change caused “100 billion dollars of damage” in 2018. It’s another BIN moment (a Big Irrelevant Number).
To put that in perspective, the GWP (Gross World Product) is around $100 Trillion dollars. So, all that inflated climate damage rained upon us and 99.9% of the global economy wouldn’t even notice.
News, AFP, AAP, BBC, maybe ABC, CBC, CNN, CBC, everyone with a channel.
As reported by the same people who say “If you want heart surgery, ask a doctor.”
The bill for climate-linked disasters in 2018 is estimated to be more than $100 billion according to a leading UK relief organisation.
A Relief Charity added up these numbers. They couldn’t possibly have anything to gain by inflating them, could they?
From floods to extreme heat, 10 of the worst climate-linked disasters in 2018 caused at least $A120.8 billion worth of damage, says a study released by the charity Christian Aid.
I don’t think they meant to tell us that Antarctica was fine…
Extreme weather driven by climate change hit every populated continent this year, the British relief organisation says, warning urgent action is needed to combat global warming.
“This report shows that for many people, climate change is having devastating impacts on their lives and livelihoods right now,” said Kat Kramer, who heads Christian Aid’s work on climate issues, in a statement on Thursday.
Yes, it was the strongest storm since an even stronger one hit 50 years ago:
Topping the list were hurricanes Florence and Michael, which caused an estimated $A24 billion and $A21 billion worth of damage, respectively.
Michael was the strongest storm to hit the continental United States since 1969, and killed 45 people in the US and at least 13 in Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador.
In 1969 CO2 levels were 322ppm, a wonderful 80 ppm lower than today. If only we could return to that and get storms …just like Michael.
The BBC even found some tea leaf statistics:
Research published at the time showed that the rains accompanying Hurricane Florence were made 50% worse than they would have been without human influenced warming.
But the rains could have been 50% better if they were calculated on models that worked. We’ll never know.
Notice how the “warmest years on record” have ballooned out from the “hottest single year” to the hottest five, hottest ten, now top 20:
The 20 warmest years on record have been within the past 22 years, the United Nations said last month, with 2018 on track to be the fourth hottest.
Imagine hypothetically that the last warming was cyclic. To keep using the word “hottest” PR hacks would have to create an expanding progression as the warming peaked, plateaued, then ebbed. Just sayin…
9.7 out of 10 based on 66 ratings
 Channel Seven News. Unintended consequences: When your insurance to stop the planet burning burns down your house instead.
Storing all that energy in a small box at home. What could possibly go wrong?
Fire crews are warning that solar powered batteries may cause fires that move fast and burn with “ferocity”.
Solar home battery warning after Brisbane house fire
Brisbane Times, Toby Crockford
The homeowner told reporters they had solar panels connected to lithium-ion batteries and suspected the fire started nearby, a view shared by firefighter Malcolm Muscat.
“[There were] approximately three battery banks so lithium-ion, lead-acid batteries, they burn with a ferocity that moves through the house quickly,” Mr Muscat said.
Remember: When the future of the planet is at stake, there’s no such thing as too much insurance.
We just hope the owners had plenty.
Friends and family can be consoled that the house has been sacrificed for a good fashionable cause.
Note this is the “suspected” cause in this fire, but solar panels have been linked to many other house fires.
Does your home need a “fire bunker”?
From July 12th, 2017, Greg Brown, The Australian
Victoria’s Metropolitan Fire Brigade has responded to more than 40 fires caused by home solar power systems in the past five years and warned that it would take years to understand the fire risk posed by lithium ion battery storage.
The MFB said the solar installations were vulnerable to faults across their systems, including isolation switches, inverters and installed wiring, and from deteriorating components.
The alarming figures come as the solar battery storage industry pushes to kill new regulations that would force homeowners to build a separate “fire bunker” housing for battery installations.
Crikey! Check out the wording on the draft safety standards:
Under draft rules released by Standards Australia, lithium ion batteries are classed as “Fire Class 1” and would not be allowed inside or within 1m of a domestic dwelling. The industry will have until August 15 to respond to the draft regulations.
Energy Safe Victoria director Neil Fraser said at least eight solar panel models had been taken off the market in the past five years because of fire concerns.
What happened to those draft AS/NZS 5139 rules from 18 months ago? After a bit of a panic from the industry and complaints Standards Australia agreed to review things, then in December last year adopted “international standards“. It’s not like we are in a fire prone country with extended fire risk seasons, large houses, and lots of solar panels, I guess…
Apparently, Standards Australia was accused of “complete overkill” for suggesting that people installing a known fire hazard should put it in a bunker.
Ben Potter, Australian Financial Review
Standards Australia could be stripped of its authority to set standards for home batteries such as the Tesla Powerwall 2 after the battery industry dismissed a draft standard requiring lithium ion batteries to be locked in concrete bunkers as “overkill”.
The standards setting body has been working on the standard for a year year but its draft standard is so onerous that battery installers reckon it could kill off their industry and German battery-maker Sonnen has shelved plans for local production until the impasse is resolved.
Imagine being accused of overkill by the same team that want to save the Earth with light globes, panels and windmills.
h/t Pat
9.7 out of 10 based on 92 ratings
…
8.6 out of 10 based on 24 ratings
 Image by pixel2013 Thanks to readers who responded to the request to respond to the Carols against Coal. After the gripping thrill of “We Wish You a Steady Climate“, get ready for a treat. Here’s draft one of Christmas Carols to Warm the World. Forgive the odd blasphemy, there are some absolute gems lines here. With a little more fine tuning I see lots of potential — a book for next Christmas? Thank you to the star contributors, and please keep them coming!
Merry Christmas to everyone. — Jo
Tides of Mudgee: O Come All Ye Warmists
Oh come all ye warmists
You think you’re so triumphant
Oh come on, admit it now, you’re wrong, wrong, wrong
Climate is changing,
But we are not the cause of it.
We cannot change the CO2,
It doesn’t drive the temperature,
The biggest lie in history
Christ I’m bored.
Reed Coray — Jingle Coal
Burning all that coal
Warms our very soul
o’er the lumps we roll
Staying warm’s our goal.
Watching Gaia squirm
Maybe even burn
Looking for a fight
Makes our spirits bright.
Doing what we should
Even all we could
Doing plants much good
Better coal than wood
Laughing at our peers
Holding back our tears
Can’t believe our ears
Hearing phony fears.
Busy at the pole,
Elfs are mining coal
Santa’s on a roll
Leaving lumps of coal.
PeterC
Mining Coal, Mining Coal
Mining Coal all day
Oh what fun it is to load
a hopper all the way eh.
Mark M
Wind turbine, wind turbines, turbines all the way,
Oh what stupidity it is to head, back to pre-industrial days, hey!
tom0mason: Good King Wenceslas
Old King Coal was last dug out, on the Feast of Stephen.
Wind and solar all about, rigged prices don’t breakeven.
Brightly shone the the forest that night, the fire it was cruel,
Now the poor folk roundabout hadn’t any fuel.
Robber: The Twelfth day of Christmas
On the twelfth day of Christmas
My true love sent to me
Twelve greenies prattling
Eleven warmists nagging
Ten pollies raving
Nine coal mines working
Eight windmills idling
Seven panels sunning
Six rent takers reaping
Five RETs
Four subsidies
Three promises broken
Two climate cultists
And Australia up a gum tree.
|
.. |
Sonny: All I want for Christmas
I don’t want a lot for Christmas
There’s just one thing I need
I don’t care about the presents
and all that capitalist greed.
I just want to stop climate change
Though my friends think I’m deranged
Make my wish come true
All I want for Christmas
Is to impose my world-view.
I don’t want a lot for Christmas
There is just one thing I need
I don’t care about the presents
And would never cut down a tree
I don’t buy china made stockings
And would never light my fireplace
Santa Claus won’t make me happy
His plastic toys are a disgrace.
I just want to fight global warming
i don’t care if i am conforming
Make my wish come true
All I want for Christmas
Is to impose my world-view.
I won’t ask for much this Christmas
I won’t even wish for snow
I’m just gonna keep on waiting
For the big coal overthrow
I won’t make a list and send it
To the North Pole for Saint Nick
I would rather stay awake
and study Mann’s hockey stick.
I just want to get climate right
Thats why i won’t turn on the light
What more can i do?
Baby all I want for Christmas is
to impose my world-view.
No lights are shining
There is darkness everywhere
And the sound of children’s
Laughter vanished into thin air.
Nobody is singing
But i hear those alarm bells ringing
Santa won’t you help me with my scruple
And make Christmas Carbon Neutral.
Oh I don’t want a lot for Christmas
This is all I’m asking for
I just want to see this world
Become like Orwell’s 1984
I just want warming to slow
More than you could ever know
Make my wish come true
Baby all I want for Christmas is to impose my world-view.
Baby all I want for Christmas is to impose my world-view.
Baby all I want for Christmas is to impose my world-view.
|
Latus Dextro — The First Noel
The First Noel
(mod. English carol, 17th century)
—————————————————————
The first Noel Mike Mann did say
Was a great warming now well underway
In committees they lay,
In politics they played,
Laying out their plans
On a hot summers day.
No-coal No-coal No-coal No-coal!
Green is the face of Gaial!
—————————————————————
They hooked up and saw a scam
Shining was the West all ’round them now,
And to the earth they gave great cash,
And so it continued both day and night.
No-coal No-coal No-coal No-coal!
Green is the face of Gaial!
—————————————————————
And by the cash from that great wealth
Wise men flew from countries afar,
To seek more cash was their intent
And to follow the wealth
Wherever it went.
No-coal No-coal No-coal No-coal!
Green is the face of Gaial!
—————————————————————
This faith grew forth to all the World
Over everything it took its cue,
And there it did both stop and stay
Over every place where power lay.
No-coal No-coal No-coal No-coal!
Green is the face of Gaial!
—————————————————————
Then did they know the great cooling seas
That their models were nix just a vacant big tease:
as the meme failed the dream did too,
And they found themselves deep in the loo:
No-coal No-coal No-coal No-coal!
Green is the face of Gaial!
—————————————————————
Then came the greater cold, the grand solar change,
that created a big chill over the world:
no food, no crops, no cash, no tax,
Gone is the greed of the carbon creed.
No-coal No-coal No-coal No-coal!
Green is the face of Gaial!
—————————————————————
Then let us all with one accord
Sing praise to all the earthly joules,
That hath made heaven
out of naught on earth,
And with warmth mankind has brought great cheer.
Noel Noel Noel Noel!
Born is the King of Israel!
|
|
Alice Thermopolis: On the first day of Christmas
On the first day of Christmas,
Catholic Online sent to me
More climate fare from the Holy Chair,
And a post-truth partridge in a pear tree.
On the second day of eco-worrying,
Satan sent to me
A Polar Vortex to perplex,
And a Trump-et in a populist tree.
On the third day of extreme-weather,
An angel sent to me
A message from Jehovah, another super-Nova,
And a Paltridge in a pear tree.
On the fourth day of weird-weather,
Project Stardust sent to me
Samples from my gutter that made me splutter
But no alarmist from the IPCC.
On the fifth day of Christmas,
The American Geophysical Union sent to me
Feelings of anger, panic and fear;
Free of charge, without a fee.
On the seventh day of extreme weather,
Cool La Nina sent to me
News that El Niño’s fading fast.
The scare just couldn’t last, said she.
On the eighth day of eco-worrying,
Scott and Shackleton sent a note to me:
Little change in sea ice in a century, that’s nice;
And fifty penguins in a pear tree.
On the ninth day of Goldilocks weather,
Someone on the Hill sent a card to me;
Wow. Energy security’s the buzz-word now,
And one hundred politicians in a baobab tree.
On the tenth day of unsustainable power,
The Energy Market Operator sent a report to me:
Relax, it said, our generational mix is fine;
And one thousand windmills in a pro bono publico tree.
On the eleventh day of Christmas,
Two RMIT fellows sent a recipe to me:
Eat the roo, not the moo,
And ten thousand turkeys in a peer tree.
On the twelfth day of Christmas,
A prophecy came to me:
Curses. The alarmist circus is,
Perhaps, running out of time. We’ll see.
Sound the TRUMP-ET! |
A poem from Ruairi
Our carols will withstand attack,
From warmists who try to hijack,
These great Christmas tunes,
And from climate-change loons,
Who use them to hate coal and slack.
|
|
Eric Huxter — Imagine
Imagine there’s no fossil fuels
It’s easy if you try
Chill earth beneath us
O’er us cold blue sky
Imagine all the people
dying in their droves…
Imagine there’s no fossil fuels
It isn’t hard to do
Naught to aid survival
the CAGW religion too
Imagine all the people
dying in their droves…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the population will be just one
Imagine fewer humans
I wonder if you can
All is fear and hunger
A change caused by man
Imagine all the people
dying in their droves…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the population will be just one |
9.3 out of 10 based on 50 ratings
One big government agency quietly admits renewables make electricity more expensive, and another big gov media agency hides it.
The new AMEC report tells us renewables will make electricity prices go down a tiny 2% in the short run but make electricity more expensive in the long run due to forcing out cheap baseload players. What matters most to Australians — that we can expect our electricity costs to be 2% less than “obscene” for the next couple of years, or that the artificial transition we are forcing on the grid will indirectly make electricity more expensive?
Which message does the ABC headline? Say hello to Trivia!
Renewables set to drive down power prices, new AEMC analysis shows
 The ABC is essentially a taxpayer funded advertising machine for the renewables industry.
A flood of new renewable energy projects is likely to drive down household electricity bills, according to new analysis by government policy adviser the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC).
On a national basis, household bills are set to fall by 2.1 per cent — but price falls in the eastern states and South Australia are offset by increases in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT.
We pay the ABC three million dollars a day so they can parrot press releases. Unpaid bloggers only had to read to paragraph 24 to find the report says that the renewable subsidy may lead to higher wholesale prices (page V, summary, para 24). The qualification “may” applies to the renewable schemes that don’t “incentivize investment in firming technology”. In other words the “may” might as well be a “must” in Australia. There are no cheap options for “firming technology” that the RET is not actively forcing out of the market.
There’s always a way to blame coal:
The price reductions will go some way to reversing big power bill hikes driven by increased cost and market volatility driven by the retirement of two brown coal power stations — Northern at Port Augusta in SA, and Hazelwood in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley.
 Look what happens when renewables increase and coal decreases… The big picture is all a bit complicated for big-welfare-journalists. See the graph above. The carbon tax increased the price. The closure of coal plants increased the price. Renewables have increased through the whole duration of this graph and so has the price. What will make electricity cheaper … ABC says “renewables”. Sure.
In the long run, renewables increase the cost of electricity three different ways:
Firstly the subsidy itself costs money, secondly it indirectly it drives out reliable, cheap supply, then thirdly, it adds an unreliable supply that makes the other generators on the grid less efficient and higher in cost too.
The direct costs of the large-scale renewable energy target (LRET) are included in the environmental component of the cost stack. However it is important to also recognise the indirect impact of this policy. The LRET provides incentives for increased quantities of renewable generation to enter the market, even when demand is flat or falling. This is because the revenue that these intermittent generators receive from the scheme is additional to that available.
Over time, to the extent to which the LRET contributes to the exit of thermal generation but does not incentivise investment in firming technologies, it may result in a tighter supply-demand balance and lead to higher wholesale prices. from the wholesale market and the LGC penalty price is higher than the expected long-run cost of investing in new intermittent generation.
The overall impact of the LRET has therefore been to drive down wholesale prices in the short term but, in the absence of policies and incentives to encourage investment in replacement generation and firming technologies, it contributes to periods of more volatile and potentially higher wholesale prices. (page 44)
More solar rooftop PV means higher wholesale prices, not lower:
While the ABC tells Australians that renewables make electricity cheaper, the AMEC report makes it clear that more rooftop panels make electricity generation more expensive for the reliable generators on the grid.
• In the WEM in Western Australia, wholesale costs are estimated to increase throughout the reporting period. This is due to increasing gas and coal prices. Changes in the residential demand shape related to increased penetration of rooftop PV also contribute to an increase in wholesale costs. See fig 6.1
In the WEM, wholesale costs were estimated based on a Long Run Marginal Costs (LRMC) approach for the electricity system.
The LRMC approach estimated that wholesale costs are expected to increase in the WEM from 2017-18 to 2020-21 due to:
- a slight increase in peak demand and a change in residential demand shape related to the increased penetration of rooftop PV systems. This reduces the energy demand met per fixed capital cost of generation, such that the long-run marginal costs of generation increase.
- increasing gas and coal prices.
The direct costs of renewable energy targets
The direct costs of the Renewable Energy Target are between $50 – $250 a year and rising. But the real costs are the indirect costs. The price of wholesale electricity has tripled in the last three years. Bear in mind, these are averaged costs. Those with solar panels have much smaller electricity bills and therefore pay a lot less RET.
Keep reading →
9.6 out of 10 based on 65 ratings
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
Recent Comments