The sore losers of the renewable-fantasy hope you don’t expect them to apologize
We are at the beginning of the big-flip. The activist pundits are suddenly realizing that renewables aren’t cheap and worse, that the public know it. Without blinking, they’re switching from telling us how cheap renewables are to saying of course, it’s going to be difficult, like everyone knows this and they haven’t been completely wrong for twenty years and wasted trillions of dollars.
They hope of course to erase the past, skip the apology, and slide the public straight into acceptance — that the transition will cost more, of course.
Take Peter Lewis, of Essential Polling. He writes snidely in The Guardian:
Here’s the truth: energy transition is hard. Not everyone gets a pony
The climate crisis has long been defined by its lies: From the original sin of science denial, to Tony Abbott’s confected carbon tax panic, to the latest yellowcake straw man. But the most damaging porky of all might be that the transition to renewable energy will be easy.
Did you see what he did there? He blamed and named conservatives and then pretends they were the ones selling the lie that the transition would be easy? It’s writing like this that makes The Guardian the tabloid trash can of history. The most damaging porky may well be that wind and solar would be cheap, but it was a progressive fantasy and Mr Lewis himself was practically on the sales team. Pity he doesn’t have the honesty to admit it.
Here’s the same Peter Lewis in 2017 — smug, wrong, and condescending to the end
Clean energy is plummeting in cost, and the smart technology solutions that will make it work are proving themselves. The coal club can huff and puff but it’s too late to blow the renewable house down.
The new reformed Peter Lewis now says the transition is “hugely disruptive”:
Both gloss over the hard truth that fundamentally changing the way Australia produces, shares and uses energy is hugely disruptive, particularly in the regions where new infrastructure is earmarked for land and sea.
Given Peter Lewis’s childishly patronizing attitude, and dishonesty, we have to wonder how biased are those “Essential Polls”?
The reason he’s flipped is that the latest polls show most people don’t believe renewables are cheap anymore:
And, as this week’s Guardian Essential Report shows, one of the fundamental building blocks driving this narrative is unstable: people don’t believe renewables are cheaper.
When asked to rank energy sources in order of cost, renewables are rated the most expensive. Fossil fuels are seen as a cheaper solution, while nuclear is preferred by those who don’t support the transition anyway.
…
Back in 2015 fully 47% of the voters, or almost half, thought renewables were the cheapest source of electricity, but that’s fallen to 34%. In 2015 only 20% of people thought fossil fuels were cheaper. Now 33% do. And 40% say renewables are the most expensive of all.
Things are shifting fast — last October 28% of Australians thought fossil fuels were the most expensive, but six months later, that has fallen to 24%.
So get ready to hear them say “we always knew it would be expensive”. It’s coming. They’re going to want to stuff “renewables are cheap” down the memory hole.
Never let them forget. We need those grovelling apologies, and with letters of resignation.
h.t to Ben Beatty @EnergyWrapAU
What would be an example of a true and(or) predictive statement ever uttered by the proponents of AGW and Renewable Energy?
(I only ask this because I began to compile an AGW porky list, but my fingers were cramping up and I ran out of time and have to hurry because my beach front estate is being threatened by anthropogenic SLR. So I figured this question would be more efficient.)
431
Uhhmm…🤔?
…hmm…?
…nuh, drawing a blank.
210
But barking mad Albo + BO Bowen + Labor party + the Greens + most of the MSM + so many so called Scientists etc were still yelling that TOXIC W & S were the least expensive just a month ago.
BTW that poll would drop off a cliff if the voters were told that TOXIC W & S only last 15 to 20 years and only work for about 15% and 30% of the time every 24 hours.
460
Of course the cost of Battery back up for TOXIC W & S would be horrendous and any country that tried it would quickly have a very low standard of living and would be a sitting duck for China, Russia, Iran etc..
260
Just a heads up on the LNP in Queensland. The opposition leader, Crusafuli, has made it quite clear that he supports net zero. Simon Birmingham, the WEF acolytte, also supports Net zero as well as Albozo’s misinformation bill. So in fact a change of government will mean net zero in terms of climate as well as net zero in change of ALP / Green coalition
policies.
Dutton would love to see a change to his way of thinking but the majority in the LNP party room will stop him dead in his tracks. One wonders if the expense of an election is worth while if policies & outcomes will remain the same. Welcome to Uniparty world where the cannot change anything.
Time to dump the LNP & vote for real conservatives!
320
Dutton proved himself to be a fool when he said that he wanted to use SMRs as “backup/firming” to unreliables.
The Libs are too far gone with the belief in unreliables.
Labor, the Greens and the Libs seem determined to complete the destruction of our once cheap and efficient electricity grid.
As you stated…
190
hardly a fool, he has to convey a message to the general populace conditioned to pc speak, to me he was positioning SMRs as doing the job coal and gas do now.
they lack the courage/confidence to speak the truth
130
They… “lack a spine” ..fullstop !
100
Those wondering why politicians often make decisions that benefit themselves and harm the voters – as is the case with renewables, might be interested in a Quadrant Online article today, detailing bribery of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. The accusation is that Whitlam lied to cover up being placed in a position where he was threatened over loan arrangements with some Iraq people.
The need to choose between the wishes of the people in 1975-6 and concealing the truth for re-election gains is all laid out.
Geoff S
80
Net zero emissions = zero economic prosperity.
110
It is surely becoming obvious by now, even to ‘the faithful’, that two energy systems – one of which does not work – can never be cheaper than just one which does.
130
You would think so but they will beleive until they are told not to beleive or given the next big thing to focus on.
10
Thanks again Jo and I just wonder how you carry on , listening to all their BS and FRAUD over the last 20 to 30 years?
Just think of the reaction if the voters really understood the difference between OECD and NON OECD co2 emissions since 1990.
Trust me most people haven’t got a clue and leftie extremists become very hostile when you try to explain the data to them.
Then try and explain that the entire SH is already a co2 SINK.
390
It just occurred to me … a curiosity …
the same folk that told us that renewable energy would be cheap …
also never forced anyone to get vaccinated.
https://torontosun.com/news/national/trudeau-says-he-didnt-force-anyone-to-get-vaccinated
350
WARNING: If you have a weak heart do not click on the link above.
You will see this quote from Mr. Trudeau …
“I studied English literature, so words are really important to me.”
I survived, but had to change my undies.
160
That poll would also benefit if voters were shown a video of the Logarithmic effect of increasing co2 levels and anyway we know that Humans have seen the greatest flourishing in our history since 1950.
Co2 levels about 311 ppm in 1950 and about 421 ppm in 2024.
150
I hope someone has sent Simon his new script.
260
Jo’s last post featured the CEO of Alinta complaining that solar panels were pushing wholesale prices into negative territory that burns the other generators. The marginal cost of supply for renewables is almost zero (until there is no more supply) whereas purchasing fossil fuel means the marginal cost is higher.
Everybody knows that hydro, solar, and wind are weather dependent. If Jo felt that she was being misled by the media about this, that’s her issue.
A robust electricity supply requires multiple sources of generation, a distributed network, and environmental sustainability. Many states don’t have this and that’s why it costs money and time to make it so.
245
Wholesale prices being cheap for part of the day doesn’t mean anything in regards to what the consumer will eventually pay for retail electricity. I’ve said it before and ill say it again: I’ll believe solar/wind are cheap when their addition to the grid makes my power bill go down.
320
Simon, just because you can say the words “marginal cost” doesn’t mean you have a point. The whole system cost is the economic vampire you can’t mention.
Tell me again how many renewables of the unreliable sort were on the Australian grid in the 1990s when retail electricity prices were so cheap? Would that be zero?
A robust electricity supply is what we used to have when we had no wind and solar. Remember that old point about “economies of scale” where we concentrate our generators and grind out the inefficiencies? Your fantasy lecture about needing “multiple sources” and a distributed network is a kindergarten apple pie advertising slogan.
420
Everyone is ignoring the big issue, which is low quality brown coal is not an environmentally friendly solution. Yes, scrubbers can remove many of the particulates, but CO2 emissions have to be restricted to more economically important outputs. Carbon taxes and/or a ETS drives rational behaviour.
Everyone is also ignoring the demand side. Solar and wind tends to peak in the afternoon, which is also when industrial and AC peaks. Demand and storage capability is flexible when incentivised by price. Free markets are great at matching supply and demand. There seem to be quite a few people here who seem to like privatising profits but socialising losses.
036
You really mean “subsidised”.
120
.
Whereas building unreliable systems from toxic products, mounting them on tonnes of concrete then running thousands of kilometres of unnecessary copper wire through bushland AND then having a fully redundant fossil fuel system as back up is just so environmentally friendly, eh Simple Simon?
290
CO2 is NOT AN EMISSSION. Get it right.
80
It’s an emission from burning hydrocarbons, like water vapour, it’s just not a problem 🙂
80
Spot the problem words within that sentence Simon?
Those words are “tends to”.
Substitute those words with “intermittently” and you have identified the massive problem with unreliables.
They are not fit for purpose. End of story.
160
With 2024 technology burning brown coal can be made much cleaner/less dirty that the 60s technology that is the mental baseline.
Also lets not pretend that so called “renewables” are environmentally friendly.
40
hahaha
The reliable supply of an electricity grid that is powered by unreliables 24/7 results in a retail price of $$$$$$
Give us a figure Simon.
190
It is difficult to discern what portions of your post derive from economic and grid ignorance, calumny towards Jo, or intentional deception.
There are reasons why “marginal cost of supply for renewables is almost zero”. Govt subsidy of solar panels, Govt legislation forcing utilities to absorb solar even if it isn’t needed or forces utilities to reduce thermal generation, all at no cost to the solar providers. The solar providers at large solar farms don’t pay for the transmission lines to receive their supply, the utilities do. The solar providers are not required to contractually “bid into the load” at day ahead obligations. Only the coal/hydro/gas/nuke providers have to guarantee generation.
You overlook the requirement for thermal plants to ramp up and down to accommodate wind and solar, at no cost to the wind/solar providers. As well left out is the utter dependency of wind/solar providers upon the dispatchable generators to stabilize frequency and voltage at no cost to the wind/solar providers.
I missed the part where you covered the decades old fraud of using LCOE to compare generation and attendant grid costs between dispatchable and non-dispatchable generation. LCOE was Only and Ever intended to compare costs of dispatchable generation so a utility could logically analyze the generation cost options and make a rational decision. LCOE was NEVER intended to compare unpredictable, parasitic, non-dispatchable generators with enormous transmission line construction costs to a site specific dispatchable generator. Misusing LCOE to “prove” they are the “least expensive option” as solar/wind have done, is an outright fraud.
In a proper economic analysis, the wind/solar providers would have to include the cost of the transmission line connectors they need to deliver their product. And they would have to “bid into the load” a day ahead with binding contracts for absolute delivery. And pay for FCAS support, as well as any required rampdown costs of dispatchable generation necessary to absorb their production. Any costs for warm or hot standby of any dispatchable plant should be borne by the solar/wind providers if those plants would otherwise be placed into cold standby.
In other words, it is a complete fiction that wind/solar have a zero marginal cost of supply because that claim is based on “others” paying for all the costs that wind/solar have avoided. It isn’t that the actual costs don’t exist, it is simply that someone other than the wind/solar crowd is forced to pay for those costs under penalty of law. Ultimately, the ratepayer and taxpayer pay for all the costs, but don’t for one second obfuscate the market distortions imposed by intermittent nondispatchable generators upon an otherwise stable and economic grid.
If you want to have your fantasy, carry on. But be honest about it and pay for all the impacts caused by your fantasy.
I’ll save the tort liability aspects of preventable grid collapse due to overpenetration of nondispatchable generators for another day.
460
Epic riposte from Lance; an apparent energy sector insider, present or past, with a handle on the minutiae schooling a forest manager on same.
Reminds me of The Untouchables line emulated in at least 20 other films – Simon “brings a knife to a gunfight”.
I’m guessing we will not see an element-by-element reply from Simon – he’s well out of his zone.
130
“Unpredictable, parasitic, non-dispatchable generators with enormous transmission line construction costs.”
Best description of ‘unreliable’ power I’ve seen for a while.
40
A little lesson for simple simon. Every day all the major generators bid for the next day’s baseload requirement. The last bid that fills the requirement dictates the WHOLESALE price that all the generators get. (NOTE-not one of these bidders is a renewable) The next day, the morning peak is filled by gas and hydro with whatever wind is blowing enough to bid for the next five minutes. ALSO for the convenience of ONLY the renewable crowd…any time ruinable generates enough power against ANY load the baseload guys must wind down to allow the use of ruinable. Baseload does not receive any compensation for this. Indeed, and this is what Alinta was referring to, there is a glut of small rooftop solar. So much so, as the sun does its normal job there is a an increasing peak all day that swamps out everyone else including ruinable power. This cannot be used as part of the baseload calculation. So, Alinta has to calculate whether it is economical to build a wind factory that returns at best $58/KWhr when he knows if the sun does shine he is wiped out by rooftop solar. The baseload generators are happy to get $15/KWhr so stand not to lose too much compared to the wind factories and large scale solar. it has nothing to do with the price of coal…BECAUSE….every last baseload station sits on its own wholely owned coal mine. The only expense is royalty payment to the states.
150
For a long time we were told to believe that renewable power is cheap power. Many of us knew way back that it was another lie from the socialists’ zero-emissions push. It’s now being exposed as such. But this is only the tip of the Titanic’s iceberg. Things are going to get worse, much worse, as more kool (yes, I know) power lends its aid to the grid.
150
That’s because our senses are tuned to detecting socialist BS as soon as they utter it. Unfortunately a sizeable chunk of the population doesn’t notice until the hour is late and major damage has been done. Happens with energy, education, economics, you name it.
By the way Sean, if the initials GGS and FB mean anything to you, I think we went to high school together.
70
No, there must be at least one other of my namesake around 🙂
10
Yes, Simon: “A robust electricity supply requires multiple sources of generation, a distributed network, and environmental sustainability.”
That’s like saying “Water is Wet”. Robust is meaningless unless defined and integrated into the entire system.
Reliable generation requires fuel diversity, generation technology diversity, concentration of generation in economic proximity to known and expected loads, and sustainability in many areas (fuel, materials,etc). But reality has a vote.
Dispatchable generation is located within optimized economic reach of known and expected loads, fuel sources, water supplies, rail and motorway access, with available workforce trained or trainable, under the legal obligation to generate, deliver, maintain, and guarantee under law, reliable and sufficient power as provided under the tariffs and rules from a utilities commission.
Non dispatchable generation is located wherever the wind blows or where sufficient land area might be gotten, without regard to transmission costs, reliability, or liability for failure to deliver. Under no requirement to guarantee generation, sufficiency, reliability, cost, or sustainability, by any binding laws or tariffs.
Each solar panel of nominally 300 W requires about 20 grams of silver. Using solar only, and only for North America, the silver required is 600% of all known world silver reserves and would require manufacture, delivery, installation, and integration of 1 Sq M per second for the next 930 years using 100% of the output of all existing manufacturing capacity. And, the entire world supply of lithium. Since this can only be done once, there’s no lithium left over for anyone else for the batteries, and not even once for the silver. Oh, and if you want total BEV in the USA, double that requirement. Both solar, silver, and Lithium. Even if that is halved, it is still 300% of total known world silver reserves, just for the USA. So how is that sustainable?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/04/going-solar-system-requirements-for-100-u-s-solar-generated-utility-baseload-electricity/
Therefore, solar isn’t going to be sustainable on a global basis. Wind isn’t either because there are not enough rare earths in existence to supply the needs of the magnets used in them.
There is enough coal for about 100 to 500 years, depending on which country you reference and how long that is expected to be used.
There is enough Uranium to provide about 200 years of fission power, without reprocessing. Maybe 500 years with reprocessing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
There’s enough Thorium for some 14,000 to 28000 years of use with reprocessing.
So, instead of pushing unsustainable wind and solar, why not look at short, mid and long term solutions that can actually happen?
Unless, of course, ideology trumps reality and it is somehow better to destroy the world in order to rule over the remains.
Engineers see the world of tradeoffs working towards manageable solutions to a given problem. They get sued and fired for being wrong.
Politicians and ideologues see Consensus Answers to a given problem that aggregate power and take no responsibility for outcomes. They collect benefits whether right or wrong.
220
Psst…, Hey, Simon,
I’ll let you into a little secret.
Have a look at the paper that Lance posted at Comment #2 at Jo’s post of 24 April on Renewables Backpedalling. I’ll spell it out for you.
The post is:
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/04/backpedalling-now-net-zero-is-an-unhelpful-slogan-says-uk-climate-watchdog/
The paper is at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035
The paper’s author does a pretty thorough job of identifying all the real costs imposed on the grid by intermittent renewables, costs not paid for by the operators of those renewables. I suggest that you read the paper carefully. The author demonstrates very clearly that the marginal cost of supply from intermittent renewables is far, far from zero, and definitely never negative.
Then you might begin to understand the utter stupidity inherent in your comment above.
Again, very well done, Jo.
Regards,
Paul Miskelly
130
So if renewable energy was so cheap plentiful and hands down environmentally friendly then Silicon Valley California would be using it as first choice to drive server farms and especially the power hungry AI servers because SV are big backers of green wind and solar.
Right?
Sadly, no:
Silicon Valley Artificial Intelligence Is Running on Eastern Coal
https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/silicon-valley-artificial-intelligence-is-running-on-eastern-coal-5635789?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge
Silicon Valley Hypocrisy
190
From the article:
Also coal country.
130
Never mind apologies I want heads on stakes, more dams and SMRs in every State. And while the retronomics kick in I want daylight saving to be abolished.
160
Penguinite,
There is a quote similar to this in Babylon 9 : I’d like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would gaze up into your lifeless eyes and wave, like this. IMO better than Star Trek .
110
Old Goat, indeed Babylon 5 is strangely more relevant now than when it was made 30 years ago. A story of rebellion against a corrupt Global government. The media lies on behalf of the establishment and the government sets up citizen programs to inform on people at risk of “sedition”.
And of course, we don’t want literal heads, just justice. There must be a price for public servants who are incompetent.
140
Unfortunately most voters don’t know that Polar Bears are thriving in 2024 and have been for decades and are 5 times the population today compared to 1960.
The GBR Coral data shows the greatest increase since 1985.
Global SLs in 2024 are very low compared to the hotter early Holocene and 6 to 9 metres LOWER today in 2024 than the much hotter Eemian inter-glacial.
Antarctica hasn’t warmed since 1950 and trees grew up to the Arctic coastline for thousands of years during the warmer early Holocene. Today just Tundra and ice there in 2024. And ditto for the much hotter Eemian Inter Glacial.
Today 87% of Coral islands are either growing in size or are stable, see Prof Kench studies and Bolt forced their ABC to admit their error.
The world is GREENING today and has been for at least 30 years. Anyone would think the clueless GREENS would welcome this extra co2 fertilization?
Today in 2024 deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by 98% and yet global population in 1920 was UNDER 2 billion and today OVER 8 billion. THINK about those EXTRA 6.1 BILLION much SAFER Humans today.
So where’s their so called DANGEROUS CC or silly Biden’s EXISTENTIAL THREAT? Very simple sums prove they are wrong.
And so far the so called HOT SPOT above the equator has gone missing. See Dr John Christy’s videos explaining their hot spot problems.
300
You are dead right, Jo; they’ll pretend that they have been telling us all along that the transition will be difficult and expensive. To prepare for the inevitable leftist lying, I’m going to save this article to my PC, along with the two linked Guardian articles. I’ll also have them on my phone.
151
Reading the dishonest and/or stupid comments under that Lewis article pumped up my blood pressure so I had to bail out. You can only handle so much of smug, partisan hacks intentionally missing the point.
180
The great white lament!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5GHkljX-So&t=273s
70
So, the shell game begins anew.
80
Yes and under the shell representing EVs we find the pearl that the reason why so many EVs are being written off by insurance companies even where there has only been minor damage is because of “shortage of skilled mechanics and parts, as well as outdated laws”.
90
“If you tell a Big Lie often enough – people will tend to believie it”
Herr Goebbels: Reich Minister for Propaganda and Public Enlightenment.
100
Or at least pretend to believe it, even to themselves.
80
One of the reasons everyone is running for the exits is that next year we will run out of electricity, having spent hundreds of billions on renewables, a lot of it stolen. And we have blown up perfectly good power stations on the basis they were ‘old’ when they were working fine. And like factories could be kept going forever. Hazelwood was generating electricity at 98% of the original spec when it was shut down.
The dire predictions are coming in. It starts as advice. But watch as the tone becomes closer to panic. They can see the avalanche of blame coming, which makes the whole thing so much more reprehensible.
So when the blackouts come and traffic lights turn off, hospitals go onto emergency power, elevators stop and you cannot recharge your electric cars, your electric bikes, your computers, tablets, phones and your home solar is turned off by the people who pay for it, the xxxx will hit the fans. And the electric trains will stop. Good thing you are working from home, except when the power goes off and you are not working and cannot browse the internet or send emails as your mobile phone goes flat. And you cannot fill your petrol car because the petrol stations do not work.
And people will not listen to how cheap it all is. And how adequate. And how reliable. And that Snowy II will save us. We did not need saving in the first place.
And the people in charge of this unmitigated national disaster will claim it’s not their fault. They were saving the planet.
The rats in Canberra and the electricity companies and the endless Clean Energy people are already preparing their excuses along the lines of ‘we told you not to do this’. ‘It’s the price you have to pay’. ‘We warned you’. “It was in the fine print.”
Which does at least prove than when you vote for idiots, you get idiots. The ultimate caveat emptor.
Whichever party promises to build coal power stations fast will win the election. Just a few would cover the country. And stop those endless land eating, whale killing, bird chomping, park destroying, wind towers, access roads and endless, useless transmission lines.
Ethane and LPG Gas should be kept for the petrochemical industries,like plastics and fertilizer and CO2 for meat preservation. We have no replacement for gas.
300
Don’t worry about the public service however. The not working from home brigade will go to fully funded offices where they have diesel power and can charge their computers and phones and cars and bicycles at your expense. Especially in South Australia where they have big diesel generators on standby for themselves for the crisis they have created.
180
We, the people, must speak out and act against this Leftist, civilisation-destroying insanity.
Write to your political “representatives”.
Vote for conservative-oriented parties such as:
United Australia Party
Libertarian Party
One Nation.
Again, we learn from Nineteen Eighty Four.
190
Again I would advise not to split the conservative vote. It is why Albanese is in power.
Join the Liberals and make them listen. Small government, low taxation, defence, trade, currency.
Tony Abbott said it all in his lecture for Hungary.
“This internal struggle is not, as often claimed, between conservatives and liberals, but between conviction and opportunism,”
“Because it’s not really liberalism that’s now at war with conservatism; it’s progressivism – manifested inside centre-right political parties via the notion that electoral success means moving to the left in order to pick up centre-left votes.”
And in America and the UK everyone is looking for the old fashioned liberal conservatism, not Climate Change, uncontrolled mass migration, fixing the boats, importing terrorism, electric cars, windmills, LGBTIQ++.
In the US the police have switched to Trump. As have the coal states. And the miners. And the blue collar workers. As in the UK.
The last thing they want is weak at the knees progressive Liberalism. The want strong leadership and problems fixed, not created.
Splintering the right, which is what the Teals did, is not going to help.
153
You can’t spell “steal” without “teal”.
130
But I would love to find a way to get rid of extremist Progressive John Persutto in Victoria, the Liberal Party’s answer to Daniel Andrews and its seems just as bad. No other job. And being sued for calling a woman a NAZI because she said she was a woman.
Who in the Victorian Liberals is worth backing, or are they all rent seeking career progressives?
60
*Sigh*
Australia uses instant run-off voting.
If your first preference doesn’t win, then your vote flows at full strength to the second, then the third, etc. The problem of “splitting the vote” is not an issue with this type of system … it’s only a problem with first past the post systems.
Also … Albo won on preferences … he got FEWER first preference votes than ScoMo but still won the election. A split conservative vote had nothing to do with the Albo victory. Problem was a lot of people genuinely did not like ScoMo and put him last.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Australian_federal_election
60
The situation is that in many seats the Liberals win outright on first preference. Almost no Labour seats do and they get in only with Green preferences.
Splitting the Liberal votes would cost many seats as they go to second preferences as Labor and the Greens preference each other.
Turnbull had a secret deal with the Greens to preference Turnbulls Liberals(tm) which would have wiped out Labor completely. And the Liberals for that matter. Turnbull was not and never has been a Liberal. His mother was British Labor Royalty. He only went to the Liberals to use and destroy them and Labor. He nearly succeeded but the Greens backed out at the last minute and he only won by one seat after Abbott had a landslide win. And those newbies who removed Abbott were one time wonders, their own and our worst enemies. Progressives.
41
Split them, burn them and throw their ashes into the wind.
We did not get into this position from a couple of years of Elbow grease, it took a generation of Liberal/National traitors, all these bills being passed now were first tabled by Lib/Nat, this is their plan, RET the same.
Slomo was turfed because of 2020, 14 days to flatten the curve and his hand wash mandates, every dog in Slomo’s pack are still in that pack.
Your continuous tennis game of left, right, left needs to change, reintroducing the same problem will never be a solution. If you want change then you must change your mental block.
Both Liberal and Labor have stated that they will preference each other, to keep out the minors, Libs have already done this for some seats in QLD.
The graft and corruption in this 2 party preferred system must stop, this doing the same thing and expecting a different result leaves us exactly in the same position we have always been in.
One Nation know they can’t win an election, they don’t want too, balance of power is the goal, this has worked for the Greens, Lambie and many independent’s, lets install some umpires in the cesspool of Canberra, rattle some cages. Any pain this causes will be far more tolerable than the pain of this Lib/Lab duopoly again, these are bowing to the UNESG’s, and this will be our last crack of the whip.
If you want change, change your redundant two party mentality.
Liberals, never again.
10
Sticking a solar array on the roof and getting free power from it when the sun shines bright is wonderful. A bit like fueling the car with the solar array and paying no road tax! Going green is easy
😮
36
Amazing that solar farms are crying that they cannot compete with rooftop solar.
50
When people get coerced into providing batteries for the sake of the grid they will preferrentially use those batteries to store their own rooftop power. Home solar + EV battery in the driveway, all for the sake of better home power.
Getting electricity off the gid is going to become very very expensive.
31
>”fueling the car with the solar array and paying no road tax!”
Not in NZ anymore thankfully. The FF subsidy of EVs has ended sending EV sales plummeting and the new govt has imposed road user charges on EVs. Not before time and some push back e.g. a “penalty on a plug” submission, but had to happen.
60
Nature magazine supported Biden last time and it looks like doing so again on NOV 2024.
But so many of the so called Scientific organisations are doing their best to support more of their BS and FRAUD and look after their own interests instead of concern for the average citizen.
Here Dr Pielke jr looks at the problems of so called Scientific pledges and endorsements.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/pledges-and-endorsements
90
The Left hijack organizations. It’s what they understand. Even the BLF turned the water cannons on their own members during lockdown and claimed they were not really builders and laborers, thousands of them. Obviously actors with great wardrobes.
80
Data analyst Willis Eschenbach makes it very easy for the average person to understand all the REAL ACCURATE data for just about every part of their so called Climate change over the last 124 years.
And he will always update the data if required. Last update was 24th March 2024.
Of course he uses only verifiable data, like NASA, NOAA, OWI Data, Dr Ryan Maue, Dr Roger Pielke jr etc.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
60
It makes little sense to install a heat pump (heater/AC) in cooler climates with the current technology. Surely the future will use a water heat capacity ballast (battery) to extend hesting/cooling into the evening hours. All it requires is for people not to fixated on net-zero. Thr idea is heating/cooling augmentation with as much of the energy collection and storage in one’s own home. Water heat ballast is a proven and mature technology
00
The death rates from extreme events like fires and burns are not always what we BELIEVE they would be.
Here’s the World and other cold wealthy countries, but also Australia, NZ and Spain.
I’ve included the 53 countries of Africa because it’s the poorest continent, yet has also achieved a lower death rate from 1990 to 2019 as well.
But why do Australia, Spain and NZ have the best results compared to other wealthy countries?
And why does Russia have such high erratic death rates since the bust up of the USSR? Any ideas?
Just hold your mouse on countries’ names to see the results from 1990 to 2019.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rate-from-fires-and-burns-ihme?tab=chart&country=OWID_WRL~AUS~CAN~CHN~DNK~FIN~NZL~NOR~RUS~ESP~SWE~GBR~USA~African+Region+%28WHO%29
30
I should note that Africa’s population has increased by 856 million people from 1990 to 2024.
638 million in 1990 and 1494 million today.
This makes their death rates from Burns and fires even more impressive over that period of 34 years.
And yet they’ll LIE and tell us that the world is a much more dangerous place today? And silly donkeys like Albo, B O Bowen, the Greens, so called scientists, most of the MSM, the UN SEC General, nearly all OECD countries, etc, etc actually BELIEVE their BS and FRAUD?
And the kids at school are drowned in this LUNACY and they must BELIEVE their religious CULT or they will FAIL.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/AFR/africa/population
20
Joint media release: Renewables cheapest source of electricity
“These findings from globally renowned CSIRO and Australia’s national energy market operator confirm that the Albanese Government is on the right track with its Powering Australia plan that will support the transformation to a renewable grid.
The best way to put downward pressure on energy prices for households and businesses is to help ramp up investment in renewables and that is exactly what this government doing.
This Government has a long-term plan for the energy transformation underway and this will deliver the certainty that investors in the energy sector have been lacking for so long.”
And Airbus Albo: “But I agree with the statement that the cheapest, most reliable and cleanest energy on the planet are renewables. I agree with the statement the cheapest way to deliver electricity today is not coal, it’s not gas, it’s certainly not nuclear, it’s wind, solar, backed up by pumped hydro and batteries.
Still waiting for my $275 power bill reduction.
120
60
There are two main problems as I see it:
1. The CSIRO would have to admit that they were wrong, and they are NEVER going to do that.
2. Even if the CSIRO used correct nuclear cost data, there are still many other totally wrong assumptions that they would have to correct, and clearly they are never going to do that either.
80
Not only are the CSIRO never wrong. They are never right either. The Double. Utterly useless. But public service entrepreneurs is just a joke. Like government funded politically correct Green manufacturing. That’s our money being wasted on the judgement of Albo and Bowen? They could lose in a one horse race.
30
He doesn’t care. I’m all right Jack. As for aborigines, he could not give a tinker’s. It was all about more power by altering the constitution. Now he’s just bitter and sulking. He could have legislated the Voice two years ago. As the individual Labor states are doing now.
30
People generally are not stupid, but can be misled on subjects they know little of nothing about of course.
Wind Solar Hybrid system advocates are dishonest, start with sales and marketing descriptions of new installations claiming so many homes could be, not guaranteed of course, could be supplied from installed capacity, but never is capacity factor mentioned that is around one third of installed wind turbine capacity, so not so many homes supplied, or that when the wind doesn’t blow no homes are supplied.
No mention of the “firming” back up including gas generator plants and batteries to support them until they are generating electricity, and all the costs involved.
Ignore the cost and loss of use of land for every one of the installation sites, and transmission lines from each location to the main grid, and all costs involved.
Never mention the need for a new second main grid only required for operation of Wind Solar Hybrid, and all the costs involved.
Or that the working life of the Wind Solar installations is about one third of the years of a for example nuclear plant based on SMR – Weekend Australian recently quoted $5 billion for 470MW, four years to build supplied ex-factory including building, 60 years life span.
Weekend Australian also reported that in February 2024 contracts were signed by the Albanese Labor Government with Rolls-Royce UK for future AUKUS nuclear powered submarines to be built in SA. Not to be confused with the already built US Virginia Class nuclear submarines to be supplied to the RAN soon. Rolls-Royce manufactured all the Royal Navy nuclear submarine SMRs.
Environmental vandalism clearing land and taking over farmlands for Wind Solar Hybrid system another negative factor when compared to utilising existing coal fired power stations and land, existing electricity transmission grid land, and continuing to use these assets for a nuclear future.
70
The only way the cost of ‘transitioning’ will change anything is when that cost starts to be felt by corporations and the wealthy. If these cost burdens were only impacting us plebs, nothing would change, but more and more businesses are starting to see their P&L being affected, and with it their share prices.
For example, I read just now that Hertz are still paying the price for their EV folly, with the company’s share price falling a huge 20% just yesterday, after announcing big losses on its EV fantasy.
If you or I can’t afford to heat our homes, that’s OK because we’re saving the planet, but when rich people find their stock portfolio nosediving so much that they might have to sell one of their three mansions, something must be done!
Having said this, I don’t for a moment expect that we really are seeing the beginning of the end for the AGW scam. All that will happen is a few financial knobs and dials will be tweaked so that the rich are isolated better from the transition costs and those ‘extra’ costs passed on us, while we shiver in cold homes with the lights off.
60
Biden Forcing Green Hydrogen Producers to Use Renewables Drives Up Prices. US Treasury issued draft regulations known as “45V” which provide the detail on eligibility for the tax credits. Fortescue’s biggest problem is the requirement that companies must match each hour of production to an hour of renewable power generation and consumption to be eligible.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/24/fortescue-biden-forcing-green-hydrogen-producers-to-use-renewables-drives-up-prices/
So wind and solar aren’t free and now not even cheap!
40
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/european-esg-funds-witness-heavy-decline-inflows
The trend is the latest sign of trouble in energy transition industries as wind, solar, and EV companies struggle with persistently high interest rates, rising raw material costs, and growing competition from low-cost Chinese producers.
20
The problem is that getting people to realise that renewables are cheap is a lie doesn’t kill the idea that the need for transition is a lie. It’s so difficult to make people realise that everything they have been taught about global warming is a lie and not only should we be stopping renewables because they are expensive but we should be transitioning back to fossil fuels ( and nuclear) because there is no climate crisis and there is no issue whatever the level is CO2. The demonisation of CO2 is the critical foundation that the whole global warming lie sits on and until politicians push back and base policy on this truth no real progress will be made. Substituting nuclear for renewables is the sceptics compromise but it is the warming charade that needs to be cauterised.
When Trump said global warming was a Chinese hoax the only question mark about that statement was whether it can be described as Chinese although it’s clear they’ve been a beneficiary.
Until people are forced to actually research the basic premise of global warming they will still believe the lies. When I speak to my alarmist friends I suggest that they need to prepare themselves for the fact that everything they thought they knew on the subject is a lie. I even think that when one takes into account the manipulation of historical data by the homogenisation process it is questionable whether there has been any warming at all ( certainly within the error range). I believe sceptics too readily concede there has been ‘some’ warning as if this is an undeniable truth.
If Trump gets in there is a chance that the whole global warming lie can be exposed and will come crashing down. But it won’t happen due only to cost . The fundamental lie that forms the foundation needs to be exposed.
30
“The fundamental lie “.
That co2 causes Global Warming.
The truth is that atmospheric CO2 is Irrelevant in terms of atmospheric temperature.
The task of removing PWIR from Earth’s surface after the sun has gone down is Shared by all gases in the atmosphere.
P.V = n.R.T
10
[…] published JoNova; If you fell for the government propaganda that renewables are the cheapest form of energy, the […]
00