You might think we’d know whether a solar PV system produced energy before we installed 1,000 Megawatts of it. But it’s hard to even know after the fact. Dr John Constable points us at an interesting new paper that discusses the odd creature called EROEI. This stands for energy return on energy invested. If you get back less than “one”, it sucks.
That sounds like a fine idea except everyone seems to get different answers to the same question. Solar PV in Switzerland achieves either a tenfold return or it costs a fifth of your energy. Plan your national policy with a Ouija Board?
Constable comes to the conclusion that the whole calculation is so uncertain it’s useless. There are so many subjective estimates on the “energy invested side” that the answer is almost irrelevant. Constable points out that what we really need to know is how the whole system responds to the addition of a new generator –but the whole grid analysis is even harder than just the EROEI to calculate.
His conclusion, it that we really need something more like a neural net to calculate the costs. Luckily we have one — us — and the contractual free market. It’s just the government keeps getting in the way of it working.
ENERGY RETURN AND ECONOMIC PLANNING
Date: 22/02/17 Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor
In 2016 Ferruccio Ferroni and Robert J. Hopkirk published a striking article (“Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation”, Energy Policy 94 (2016), 336–344) claiming that the energy return for Solar PV sites in Switzerland might be as low as 0.8, implying that the technology was not a net energy producer but a consumer. Unsurprisingly, this paper has been the subject of intense criticism, and a detailed and in many points persuasive rebuttal has recently been published by Marco Raugei et al. (“Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation: A comprehensive response” Energy Policy 102 (2017), 377–384). Raugei and his colleagues make a number of methodological criticisms of Ferroni and Hopkirk and using alternative methods, calculate that the energy return is in the region of 7 to 10. While Raugei et al’s figure is positive it is not particularly high, as compared for example to figures in the literature for electricity from coal and gas (EROEI = 28–30), and nuclear (EROEI = 75–105) (see D. Weissbach et al. “Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power”, Energy 52 (2013), 210–221).
See — ENERGY RETURN AND ECONOMIC PLANNING
If you think the Swiss were crazy, ponder the Germans. If I read this chart correctly, they’ve installed 40,000MW.
Well I suppose. I mean, uh, does anybody really know? Sure sounds fishy to me.
142
My Dad , who did a stint consulting for a well known economic forecaster in Oz, starting with “B”, always snorts at the concept of models and how often they are wrong….
Given the debacle with the IPCC climate models, the energy forecasting mess of SA…..
Its a gift that just keeps on gving….
211
Jo,
you are asking the wrong question. The average tourist sees Stonehenge and wonders at the effort and expense in time that went into building it, and wonders how people could be so keen on building it to appease the sky gods, then goes home and demands that the country build expensive and useless objects to prevent the sky falling. Rational behaviour has nothing to do with this.
171
“to prevent the sky falling”
*chuckle*
Too bad I can only give you one green thumb for that.
90
I’ll lend you mine.
50
And I will pay both of you back.
30
Try +1000
20
Speaking of the sky is falling:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-summer-days-the-hottest-on-record-for-75-years-20170228-gunq4z.html
“Between December and February, Canberra sweated through a hotter and dryer than usual summer, with the hottest days recorded for 75 years as well as the coldest minimum.
Weatherzone senior meteorologist Jacob Cronje said, on average, it had been significantly warmer during the summer days and nights.
“It’s the hottest it’s been during the 75 years of record in the day,” Mr Cronje said.
“It’s been a very dry summer, just over 50 per cent of the summer average.
“During the night time it’s slightly [hotter], it’s 13.8 degrees on average compared to the 12.55 average.”
“We also had the coldest February morning on record at 2.8 degrees minimum.”
And i love this lovely little comment at the end:
“Weatherzone is owned by Fairfax Media.”
20
Wouldn`t 40,000 MW be enough to basically displace fossil fuels or at least a big chunk of it? How many homes could be heated/ powered by 40,000 MW?
68
Gordon,
I think that this post makes a strong suggestion that while there may be 40,000 MW, the power required to manufacture that amount of power was exceeded by the “setup” costs and the PV power is actually political fairy dust sprinkled liberally over the voting population.
If only the taxpayer voters knew the real cost of this fairy dust they may get the feeling that they were being enslaved.
But then, smoke and mirrors work wonders.
KK
372
Gordon. If the 40,000MW is solar it might be used on sunny days but would produce nothing at night. Where are you going to get the other 40,000MW for nighttime and cloudy, rainy, snowy days?
The problem is similar with wind, the power is intermittent and unreliable. Only coal, gas, oil, nuclear or hydro powe plants can run 24/7/365 to supply the power needed.
The greater the supply of energy from intermittent source the greater your supply must be from fossil fuels/nuclear to make sure the power is available 7/24/365. Please think about it. It cannot be any other way.
291
”…the power is intermittent and unreliable…It cannot be any other way.”
However the retail electric customer savings due renewable wind power have been demonstrated steady, non-intermittent and long term by the existing real “neural net”.
In the USA no state comes close to rivaling Iowa in wind generation; driving thru the State on the Interstate you see corn field after corn (or farm) field filled to the horizon with windmills. Last year the megawatt-hours Des Moines based utility MidAmerican Energy (now 90% owned by Berkshire Hathaway) generated from wind equaled 55% of all megawatt-hours sold to their Iowa retail customers. New wind projects that are underway will take that figure to 89% by 2020, wow! Thus MidAmerican is able to promise Iowan customers that their overall base electric utility rates will not increase until 2029 at the earliest.
For example of savings, right now MidAmerican’s average electric utility retail rate in Iowa is 7.1¢ per KWH, adjacent states: Nebraska 9.0¢, Missouri 9.5¢, Illinois 9.2¢, Minnesota 10.0¢. USA national average is 10.3¢ per KWH.
The top post mentions Switzerland and Germany installing solar PV so instead of complicated EROEI perhaps a better way to judge the economics is to use the existing real “neural net” to look similarly at avg. electric rates in adjacent countries or localities that do not use solar PV in commerce.
1311
Here in Australia the ACT government has signed a deal with Ararat Wind Farm to pay $87/MWh for wholesale electricity, so probably over 20 cents/kwh retail
81
Robber, with all the large govt solar installs in the ACT, has any ACT taxpayer actually been saved money by these, or are they purely CAGW feel good for the govt?
132
Sure that is Iowa. Then lets talk corn and pigs right?
Run a hospital 24/7. No run all hospitals across America 24/7
PS, Minnesota prices are on the increase BECAUSE the electric utilities are fined for not having enough “re-newables” in their production portfolios.
150
Sounds like a “protection” racket….
131
Pretty much ..!
20
The Iowa comment is cherry-picked a bit. Wind is ~30% statewide, with coal more than 1/2. In total electric production by wind, Texas is #1. Ref https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.cfm?sid=IA
101
@LtCusper … your assessment is ignoring the following:
1) Simple electricity costs per KwH do not factor in tax rebates, government subsidies, or lack of regulatory burdens imposed artificially on competitors (READ: EPA), which, in a non-socialist truly free market system would see the ‘green’ electrons actually skyrocket in cost by comparison to coal or nuclear generation. A cost per KwH unless corrected for regulatory ‘entitlements’ granted to the ‘green’ sector, in no way are a reflection on the real cost effectiveness of the actual technology, nor the qty of energy required to fabricate the physical turbine/PV-cell array plant/s themselves versus their life spans, maintenance costs, or financial ROI.
2) Turbines do not turn when the wind is not blowing, meaning that Iowa is now more reliant than ever on the interstate import of electrons from neighboring States, much of which are from ‘dirty’ (actually efficient) technologies providing base-power shortfall and synchronous frequency stability. If all US States did what Iowa has been doing, the nation would have rolling blackouts and grid instability like South Australia is suffering right now in OZ … however, South Australia has only one bordering Australian State to draw off of in grid connectivity (State of Victoria), whereas the United States power grid is much more diverse and robust BECAUSE of mass availability of ‘dirty’ electrons and solid interstate grid connectivity (including good overall generation capacities … because of ‘dirty’/reliable tech).
… Thus, Iowa’s internal grid vulnerabilities are hidden within creative bureaucratic accounting, biased analysis, media whitewashing, and Iowans are being carried stability-wise on the shoulders of ‘dirty’ States which probably export their power for close to the same rate as they offer it to their own residents because of Federal national grid regulations. Simply, Iowa is hiding under Washington D.C’s protective skirt whilst Washington shakes down Iowa’s neighboring unfortunates in order to keep up the Potemkin picture that Iowa is a good and successful child that is not habitually sucking D.C’s teat for its sustenance.
Your comment is a great example of a ‘Pot-O-Gold at the end of every rainbow’ fantasy, which would probably make every low IQ and situationally unaware leftist ideologue on Earth sing a song of utopian bliss … Bravo … applaud from the choir.
Pity reality is a b*tch that is no simpleton – case point, South Australia.
280
EWO – sure my assessment ignores your 1) rebates and subsidies et. al. since that wasn’t the point of the top post. The top post intended to answer the question copied here with Dr. Constable’s conclusion:
“Does Solar PV in half of Europe make more energy than it consumes? Constable comes to the conclusion that the whole (EROEI) calculation is so uncertain it’s useless” in answering the question posed.
BHE/MidAmerican’s actual experience in Iowa shows a useful answer to the specific question posed is available in economic data from the actual “contractual free market” indicating that BHE/MidAmerican does make more energy than it consumes in windmill generation as costs are demonstrated lower than nearby locales in the same economy. If the opposite were true, their costs would be higher. BTW no Iowan hospitals were harmed in making that movie. SA is another story of course, but that’s not Germany/Switzerland locales about which the question is being asked.
My point is apply the same real market economic methodology to Europe Solar PV and the answer to the question posed will be usefully found from the “contractual market” where EROEI methodology uncertainty/complexity will be just as useless.
80
LtCuster… Last year the megawatt-hours Des Moines based utility MidAmerican Energy (now 90% owned by Berkshire Hathaway) generated from wind equaled 55% of all megawatt-hours sold to their Iowa retail customers…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436228/wind-energy-subsidies-billions. June 6 2016.
MidAmerican Energy Company, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, has a seat on AWEA’s board. Berkshire’s subsidy total: $1.5 billion — and it’s primed to collect lots more. In April, the company announced plans to spend $3.6 billion on wind projects in Iowa. Two years ago, Berkshire’s CEO, Warren Buffett, explained why his companies are in the wind business. “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them,” he said. “They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
Wind-Energy Sector Gets $176 Billion Worth of Crony Capitalism.
…According to data from Subsidy Tracker — a database maintained by Good Jobs First, a Washington, D.C.–based organization that promotes “corporate and government accountability in economic development and smart growth for working families” — the total value of the subsidies given to the biggest players in the U.S. wind industry is now $176 billion…General Electric — the biggest wind-turbine maker in North America — has a seat on AWEA’s board. It has received $1.6 billion in local, state, and federal subsidies and $159 billion in federal loans and loan guarantees…
It is this Loan Guarantee that comprises so much of the phenomenal GE subsidy and I pose the question as to how ‘handy’would it be to have a big government Brother or Sister prepared to guarantee your mortgage or your business loan.
This Industry is like a Casino allowed to operate a Roulette Wheel with another 1 or 2 Green Zero Numbers on the wheel.
That is the 0 number or the added double 00 in which all bets are lost (generalism) and all money on the table goes to the house. Everything about 0 or 00 is designed to ensure the casino has the stats edge over the player.
Guaranteed profits and a Guaranteed Win.
Government worldwide have elected Windmill and Solar Factories as Casino’s that are all but legislated never to lose.
Cue the Dire Straits Classic MTV Song…
Money For Nothin’ and Your Chicks
For Free.
182
This sounds like a case of energy illiteracy.
120
What happens if the wind stops blowing .
70
As it does, every eleven years or so.
20
Some years ago the head of RWE (the german electricity supplier and investor in renewables) was asked how much backup was needed. He mentioned several levels as the percentage renewable capacity rose but for higher levels he said 98% of renewables capacity.
Sorry, no link, it was in a newspaper originally.
121
While whisking along between Italy and Berlin a few winters ago I was gobsmacked at how people everywhere were using densely packed solar panels to keep snow off their real roof. Not only are the days only about 3-hours long; the sun doesn’t pop-out. Instead it scoots around the edge of the horizon, bathing OZ and other southern climes in warmth and sunlight, but in Europe, the weather is is drab, overcast and frequently snowy.
So what we need is to build a multi-zillion dollar/Euro interconnector; that’s the one; say from Cyprus, Greece, Morocco .. or perhaps build some massive pontoons that could be tugged around the hemispheres, follow the sun and feed electrons back to the poor and broke people of Germany using a few extension leads from Bunnings. (They possibly also sell pylons that tilt at the wind, but I digress).
How about we fix the problem by making it worse. Let’s put an advisory committee together; set a fake institute … do you reckon it would work? Green mugs believe anything; we could maka motza!
Cheers,
Bill
100
Hmm. At one level you could see this as China exporting energy to Europe.
81
There have been other examples in government action in recent years where “cost” has never been a consideration.
The obvious example being the high minded action taken by “progressive” government to harvest the free rain that falls on our roofs.
Using household rain tanks, at huge expense, to avoid the issue of having to build new dams, has thinking that runs closely in parallel with “free” P.V. electricity.
Obviously in the case of photo-voltaic power generation the essential consideration is to have the “appearance” of getting something for free and what could be freer than the Sun’s rays. All good politics but lousy science.
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/02/solar-homes-use-more-grid-electricity-than-non-solar-homes/#comment-1893623
With this sort of government activity engaged in solely for the purpose of virtue signalling and vote gathering the cost to consumers, the efficiency of the process of having a lot of small ones do the work of one big one, it is all just crazy mind bending stuff.
You couldn’t make it up!!
For a while now I have had the feeling of going around in ever diminishing circles and all I’m waiting for is that blinding blue flash of light when I disappear.
Scientific and economic madness on a world scale: how do they get away with it?
KK
272
If I recall the meme rightly, all goes black in the end.
71
Exactly Jorge.
40
In a black hole?
51
I think eventually the grid will collapse, mainly because it has been deliberately allowed to.
Then out of the chaos, the pre-prepared “solution” will rise – benevolent slavery for all humanity under global communism to protect their mythical “gaia” and save resources.
Based on everything I have read and what I’ve seens so far, it makes the most sense. I’d heard they are even making it illegal to collect firewood from the side of the road – tough bikkies if youre freezing, we must protect that endangered tree from or
101
So we can all stick berries up our nose and bang on bongo drums for the rains to return, or would we still have to pay Al Gore and Lord Blood for the rain? I’d prefer the bongo drums version, though I kind of sense that by that time the 40 tons of CO2 we all exhale annually from our filthy commoner mouths and our methane flatulence will need to be atoned for regardless of the fact that nobody in the never-never land will know what a car is anymore ;P
Ahhh … Progress! … Progressive virtue! … as we all stare up into the sky to observe the jetliners still jetting the elite around first-class between their globalist safe spaces.
50
Unfortunately Steve you maybe right (.
Everything about so called ‘renewables’ is an economic disaster, PV etc wont do base load ever! nore will wind. Cells are going to fail after a few years, it goes on.
heres another from Driessen.
61
Yes I think the extreme greens seem to believe in thier heads they are back in the medaevil ages ( or earlier complete with druids ), dancing around their may poles, living in mud huts and sacrificing goats to the earth “goddess”…
That or they thnk they are in Middle earth / GOT or soemthing as equally as fantasy based….
You have to wonder….
41
I know you said PV will not do base load, obviously, but there is a solar technology trialed in the Negev desert that uses mirror field concentrators to heat up special oil and pump it into an insulated underground reservoir, thus allowing the thermal energy to run steam turbines at night time as well as in the day.
Other than this particular highly capital intensive solar plant, I have been unable to identify anything other than mostly existing hydro power (limited by available world hydrography) that could ever produce base load power.
The mirror fields also fry mammoth amounts of flying birds and pollinating insects like bees, so even they are not environmentally neutral and arguably are worse for the direct environment than a clean coal plant that produces probably as much power each plant as dozens and dozens of mirror field plants.
Maybe if they could be setup directly in the Sahara desert to use water from the large Libyan aquifer to drive the steam turbines, and then electricity wired up into Europe, though I’m sure dust storms would take their toll on the mirrors and/or require constant cleaning … seems like a pipe-dream that it will ever be possible to tap into natural energy without screwing the environment and the taxpayer way more than just remaining on fossil fuels and maybe instead just planting trees where they have been cut down already.
60
EyesWideOpen:
Your wish has come true, there is a solar heat program going in Morocco (google Noor i.e. light).
Morocco is dependent on diesel generation so was quite willing to trial solar heat & storage, esp. sa they didn’t have to put the money up, it was supplied by the EU, the World Bank etc. The first stage doesn’t actually store heat and the cost of the electricity is put at $A272 per MWh by the Minister of Energy (about 9 times that of coal fired but they would have to find the funds themselve). Stages 2 to 5 to follow, maybe….
20
Solar heating steam is ok but it doesnt run at night, only with some heat storage. Hydro is the best ‘renewable’ (I hate that term), unless you have objections to man made lakes flooding a few trees and old villages. Outside Tasmania mainland Aus isnt the best continent for hydro.
20
EyesWideOpen,
this technology is referred to as CSP, (Concentrating Solar Power) and is also referred to as Solar Thermal Power, and it is the technology that greenie acolytes propose for Whyalla.
It’s actually not much better than Solar PV in fact.
They have been working now for many years to try and scale it up, but are not making much progress at all.
As to being able to provide a Base Load Power application, that is also highly problematic. They have succeeded in one small case, a tiny generator of 20MW in Spain. So far it has been able to supply a continuous level of power on a 24/7/365 basis for barely 38 days at the height of Summer. However, in the middle of Winter, the plant actually has to close down because the operating temperature of the compound never reaches a point when it can heat up sufficient steam to drive the turbine.
Keep in mind that this is only a tiny 20MW unit, and that the current best case for coal fired power sees a 1300MW unit being easily driven to supply power constantly.
They have scaled up the operation of this type of solar power to a unit of 125MW, derated to 110MW, and even then they can barely manage 6 hours of operation in Summer, and that’s the plant in Nevada.
I have serious doubts that the technology can be scaled up to a point where it can be considered a viable option.
I have further analysis at the following Post of my own at the following link, where I detail the situation is Spain where there are already a number of these type of plants, and they are showing that it cannot be made to work in the manner required to replace coal fired power. That Post of mine is from November of 2013, and there have been no significant advances since then, and in fact all that has happened is that in the interim years since I made that Post, the technology has only shown itself to be even more problematic than at first flush, when so much is expected of it.
Solar Thermal Power (Concentrating Solar) Fail – Just Look At Spain
Tony.
60
Having mentioned that plant in Morocco, let’s have a look at it, and the details are shown at this link.
While a lot of this is technical, there are a couple of things I would like to point out.
The total Nameplate is 160MW for this the first operational unit. The actual power delivery is 370GWH per year so far, and that will most probably rise very marginally from now on.
That gives this plant a Capacity Factor (CF) of 26.4% which is even lower than for wind power, and that equates to an average daily power delivery of maximum power of only 6 hours and 20 Minutes, so this is not a plant which can deliver Base Load Power.
As Graeme No.3 mentioned above, it uses oil as a startup medium, (in this case diesel) and that is standard for all these CSP plants, using a strtup auxilliary supply to get the unit running prior to the solar function being able to take over, In fact, the Ivanpah plant in California has applied numerous times to increase its startup medium, in this case Natural Gas, for it to be actually able to supply the power that the plant has actually promised to deliver, and in fact, if a Carbon Tax were to be introduced into the U.S. this solar plant would be fronting up quite a large amount of money to be eligible to operate, something inconvenient for a renewable power plant.
However, with respect to this plant in Morocco, I want you to look at something important here.
There is one line in that list of data I would draw your attention to, and that is the sixth line from the top, where it says Type Of Plant.
This plant is a Sub Critical Steam Turbine, and the operating temperature (output) is shown a little further down at 393C.
This is typical for all of these CSP plants. That’s the maximum temperature they can get for the steam to drive the (160MW) Turbine/Generator unit.
The mirrors focus the Sun to a central point on this Parabolic Trough plant. That focussed light heats up the medium, here a synthetic oil instead of the usual concentrated salt medium, which is then used to boil water to steam to drive the turbine, and that is the absolute maximum temperature they can achieve for the steam, 393C, and that operating temperature is the highest they can achieve with this technology, limiting the amount of steam which can ge mad, limiting the size of the turbine to be driven, limiting the size of the Generator being driven by the turbine.
That sub critical operation is four levels of technology lower than USC (UltraSuperCritical) used for current technology coal fired power plants, and USC operating temperature ae between 600C and 620C.
The Chinese and others also are now working on the next tech level up from USC, which is Advanced USC which has an operating temperature between 720C and 760C, enabling bigger turbines to drive bigger generators, possibly in the size region of 2000MW.
One unit of 2000MW, able to deliver power continuously, or one unit of 160MW delivering power for barely 6 hours.
This plant in Morocco, has a price tag of $1.2Billion, paid by the EU and World Bank.
So to equal the Nameplate of that one unit you would need 13 of them, and to equal the actual power delivery, you would need almost 40 (plus) of them, so you’re now looking at a minimum cost of $48 Billion, and double that again, as the life span for the coal fired plant is 50 years compared to the 25 years for the solar plant, but hey, that’s moot, because there is absolutely no way known on Planet Earth that they would even consider constructing 40 of these plants just to equal the power output of the ONE coal fired unit, and there’s no way known that they would even begin to tell the public those inconvenient little home truths.
Tony.
110
You’re talking about a government who gives the UN a billion dollars, when we’re not even part of Europe.
Cost and return? what’s that?
101
Global slavery of all humanity is an expensive exercise….stress leave for UN flunkies is pricey….
131
.
KK @ # 4
The politicians have been at it for a very long time now but as they are VERY SLOW learners they will probably continue the tradition far into the future.
.
Just another of those seriously unbelievable pieces of utterly nonsensical legislation that politicians so regularly indulge themselves in without ever even appearing to actually find and activate their one and only very lonely brain cell so as to actually think a little about what they are proposing to put into the Law of the Land
If my memory serves me right, some many years ago citizens in the cities were fined by the government if it was detected that they had installed rain water tanks for their own use.
The theory as I understand it apparently being that the citizens use of such rain water supplies would decrease the use of reservoir water and thus the government would miss out on the so called efficiency [ dividends ??? / pernicious taxes ] payments of around 20 % of revenue inflicted on all quango organisations by governments, at least those here in Victoria.
Subsequently repealed at some period possibly after a change of government when the ultimate stupidity of this so called law and the promoters of the law became the subjects of some seriously caustic public comment.
10
Iv’e seen many interesting calculations here for people that have invested in solar or diesel generators where cost vs savings is concerned but to calculate the cost of resources to manufacturing to installation would be difficult to get accurate, then add in the sporadic energy output of solar PV and the cost to the grid…..
201
It’s definitely not an easy calculation, but it would move the needle closer to the Inefficient end of the spectrum rather than pithy KwH cost comparisons that do not factor in regulatory and subsidy distortions between the ‘green’ and ‘dirty’ (competitor) technologies.
Even if solar and wind are in fact found to be more efficient, nothing changes the fact that they are not base-power systems, and will only ever contribute to grid instability unless someone invents some large capacity, low cost super-mega-giga-battery technology to hold a reservoir of energy for night times and non-windy weeks or months.
70
There is No need for an ERoRI, aka Energy Return on Energy Invested calculation to ascertain the viability of any Renewable Energy system that has so far been proposed and / or built over the last century or so.
There is No need for a super computer to do the extremely complex numerical calculations as to whether wind turbines or solar cells have a positive or negative return on energy invested in creating the materials and then building the turbines and solar cell farms plus installing the grid systems to cope with the highly variable, intermittent, unpredictable, low energy density per area, renewable energy generators.
The calculation is very simple and is so very obvious to just about any rational person which excludes nearly all of the renewable fanatics, and the latest heavily hyped battery promotion [ laded with an incredible level of ignorance as to battery technology and energy storage abilities and life capabilities by the main bulk of layperson battery pushers ] in climate change beliefs in that batteries are the solution to every energy supply problem and will sustain mankind into the far eternity if we only adopt the beliefs of Politicals and the renewable energy cult proponents, most of whom can’t or don’t want to read or understand or even attempt to comprehend the simplest of sums on any ever more outlandish and impracticable proposed renewable energy scheme before they embark on yet another of the innumerable and grandiose schemes to “Save the Planet”.
Politically formulated schemes as recent history has so often confirmed that invariably are doomed to fail at enormous financial and social cost to their constituents.
But the politicals continue to persist against every conceivable piece of logic as they intend to get their names listed in the Halls of History which they might well achieve but as usual, will invariably be for all the wrong reasons.
They and the media and the sacrificial green supporters are like lambs to the financial slaughter as the renewable energy scammers lick their lips at the prospects of even more of the taxpayers hard earned being handed over to them by the Politicals and with so little effort on the part of the renewable energy scammers.
.
So that very simple question;
.
Can Renewable Energy create and build its own energy generating units, ie; its Wind Turbines and Solar Cells and Biomass Reactors and the newly fashionable battery’s that can apparently run a universe from half a dozen lithium phone batteries hooked together, without the assistance and input at any level of ANY other type or form of energy generation such as fossil fueled generation units
The answer of course is a resounding NO due to the unpredictable and intermittent, varying power output of wind turbines and solar systems and the requirement for very high power use allied with a non varying 24 hour availability and consistent and constant supply of non varying, in phase and frequency and voltage electricity for most modern and highly sophisticated industrial processes of today.
Wind energy and solar energy CANNOT create the materials, the plastics, fibres, cell materials and steels and metals and rare earths and cement for the concrete to build themselves for all the above reasons.
The ONLY renewable energy source that can build itself is Hydro Power .
Even here most of the major sources of global hydropower are already utilised or soon will be so any proposals for hydropower to be the backstop for a national or global renewable energy system will fail when due to seasonal conditions the hydro waters run out or become unavailable ; ie; Tasmania .
In addition hydro power is a very low density source of power with immense tonnages of water required to create enough useable energy from the water throughput in the hydro generators.
Which means of course a very large catchment to get a sufficient quantity of water from the catchment runoff to fill the dams to create hydro generated energy.
Energy density for wind power generation is given as from one watt per square metre / one kilowatt per square kilometer to a maximum of four watts per square meter / 4 kilowatts per square kilometer with a roughly accepted 2.5 watts maximum per square meter generated by wind turbines.
Solar energy density on a large solar farm type scale I’m still trying to figure out but it looks like about 90 watts per square meter with all roads , infrastructure and etc on a solar farm taken into account re the total area.
[ Land use requirements for Solar Power plants in the USA ]
About 770 kgs of coal in the form of 600 kgs of Coke are used to produce one tonne of steel from iron ore in what is called the Basic Oxygen Furnace.
Electric Arc Furnaces use recycled steel scrap as the source of steel output.
About 35 million watts are required to smelt the steel scrap in an Electric Arc furnace which equates to burning about 150kgs of coal in a coal fired power generator to make one tonne of steel from the scrap metal.
And for the current very fashionable cure for ALL of those Renewable Energy intermittency and variability problems, those huge batteries that are the solution and will one day, always one day, very close now, for the last forty years , will power the universe or something similar if we are to believe the propaganda, Renewables other than hydro haven’t a hope in hell of ever being able to provide the steady and utterly reliable power on their own without the backup and constant input of fossil fuelled generators to create the sophisticated materials needed in any battery system of any size even ones far below grid sized back up battery systems.
Renewables fail on EVERY count to be entirely self creating, self regenerating , self reproducing and self supporting in their entirety plus the same applies to any Renewable powered grid system of distribution with its metal wires and transformers and electronic controls , all of which require energy of a dead steady form to be able to create all the sophisticated materials and processes that has allowed mankind to create our modern civilisation.
Hence there is no need for any sophisticate calculations on the ERoRI of renewables. the logical common sense view is open for everybody to see and to draw their own conclusions from just by asking that simple question I have above.
.
Can Renewable Energy create and build its own energy generating units without any other energy source providing any input to the renewable energy generated power.?
.
The answer now and for the foreseeable future is a resounding NO!
130
It’s a measure of how unimportant CAGW is to people in power that we don’t have a firm figure. A key step is to check that what you’re doing is working. But since it’s purely virtue signalling, effectiveness would be a happy accident.
192
Jo, the Germans may have installed that nameplate value but that doesn’t mean they will get anywhere near that in reality.
You just have to look at the subsidy farms to see that.
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2011/06/27/bild-des-tages-sonnen-energie-feld-in-der-naehe-von-markranstaedt/
51
Not really surprised that a best case estimate for PV is 7-8X energy invested. It has to be that high to support a modern type of economy. If it was less than that the universe would be running down, as it were, and that would never be admitted. So, surprise, surprise, guess what number is published. Strawberry you paid for? Strawberry you get.
51
There is no limit to the stupidity of government policies based on:
1. “97% consensus science“ rather than
2. Logic and basic principles of science
171
Politicians are not at fault for believing lies disguised as 97% consensus science.
National Academies of Sciences betrayed the public by not speaking out!
61
A paper being written to celebrate the Centennial of P.K. KURODA’s birth on 1 APR 1917 will document more than seven decades of worldwide deception by the UN and the UNAS, disguised as “97% consensus science.”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2017/02/28/morning-joe-manipulating-trump/#comment-80059
10
Wind Turbines are actually leaching off power from the grid that they feed the electricity they generate. They do not account for the use of that electricity in reporting the power they generate. They claim a 2 MW turbine will supply the power needed for 2,000 homes. Implying that it provides all the power needed. House loads alone will use the equivalent of 200 homes 24/7/365, whether the wind is blowing or not. Every Wind Turbine needs, and can not generate electricity without obtaining electricity off of the grid. And if that power source is not available it will never be able to generate electricity. Power is needed to run the equipment for cooling the Nacelle , the electronic equipment, run the computers, operate the anemometers, rotating the Nacelle into the wind, pumping the oil, heating the oil and Nacelle in the winter. This adds up to more than 10% of the total gross Nameplate generated power. In cold climates it can be as much as 15%.
Do the math this Wind Turbine generates 0nly 25 to 30 % of the Nameplate rated power over the entire year and at the same time it is sucking off 10 to 15% of that nameplate rated power. NET generated power drops to about 10 to 15 % of that nameplate rating.
242
The electricity that would otherwise be going onto the grid from spinning reserve should be subtracted from that too.
41
It’s the Don Quixote of technological ideology … tilting at windmill statistics.
Boy, we live in a new dark ages, the center of which just happens to be the captured ‘academic’ institutes … 15th century technology for the 21st century … Isaac Newton and Thomas Edison are probably rolling in their graves.
Placing all of the unemployed people in the entire West on exercise bikes with electrical generators for only 30 hours per week to earn their keep, would probably be more efficient than these wind turbines and PV cells, better for overall national health and obesity … and we could even put them on a rotating night shift !!! BONUS !!!
Anyone done the math on how much nameplate energy this last scenario could generate? No, seriously, there is no more efficient device than a bicycle … maybe big tread-wheels? … we could feed them all the excess corn which is uselessly being pumped into bio-ethanol production or the massive tonnage of food which is thrown out yearly by bureaucratic regulation to artificially keep food prices high. Overweight leftists on welfare would be horrified by such a suggestion/study, no doubt.
80
EyesWideOpen,
An edition of …Human Power Shower – Bang Goes The Theory – BBC One from 2009 may be of interest if not already viewed. Staggering amount of very competent Bike riders needed to provide a five minute Electric powered shower.
Scrolling down and you come to another interesting one…Frakking…Bang Goes The Theory.
Does not advocate but does not sledge it. I imagine the BBC 1 Censor would have fixed that problem by now.
20
At the Debacle that was the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference where all the worlds nations were to be dragooned into imposing draconian legislation on the global citizenry to prevent global warming from that nefarious greenhouse gas Carbon Dioxide, Greenpeace it was I think, had erected a Climate Tree that was festooned with lights which were to be kept lit for the duration of the Conference by the use of [ green and “concerned” /sarc ] volunteers pedalling away for 24 hours a day on a substantial array of pedal generators.
By around day three of the Conference it was noted that the tree was unlit and that there was a strange dearth, a noticeable and complete lack of climate concerned volunteer pedallers on those pedal generators.
Explained by one former and now ex-pedaller that it was unexpectedly damn hard work pedalling away on those pedal generators to keep that tree lit up.
20
It doesn’t matter where you look; in Denmark, in Germany, in the UK, or in Canada, windmills are a curse.
51
Some time ago someone drew to my attention to this 2013 paper by Weissbach et al
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544213000492
(there are free preprint pdfs available but the published paper is pay walled by Elsevier)).
The abstract and highlights read :
“Abstract
The energy returned on invested, EROI, has been evaluated for typical power plants representing wind energy, photovoltaics, solar thermal, hydro, natural gas, biogas, coal and nuclear power. The strict energy concept with no “primary energy weighting”, updated material databases, and updated technical procedures make it possible to directly compare the overall efficiency of those power plants on a uniform mathematical and physical basis. Pump storage systems, needed for solar and wind energy, have been included in the EROI so that the efficiency can be compared with an “unbuffered” scenario. The results show that nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power.
Highlights
► Nuclear, “renewable” and fossil energy are comparable on a uniform physical basis. ► Energy storage is considered for the calculation, reducing the ERoEI remarkably. ► All power systems generate more energy than they consume. ► Photovoltaics, biomass and wind (buffered) are below the economical threshold.”
So it seems pertinent to the discussion.
The conclusions as you will see from the article’s front page have been open to critical comment , apparently (also paywalled) about the confusion by the Weissbach team between Life Cycle Analysis and Net Energy Analysis- a topic too abstruse for me to referee.
However although the actual figures from Weissbach may be subject to correction (and updating from 2013) I do not think that the overall comment is too far from the truth , namely that the overall winners are nuclear and hydro ( the French mix) with CCGT close behind .
Having to add storage to allow for the unreliability of solar and wind pushes these technologies below an economic threshold . I think the comment is that only highly developed societies can afford solar and wind because the shortfall is effectively made up by the wealth of its citizens.
161
If it’s anything like the boondoggle in Oz …
Renewable energy: Most solar panels ‘next to useless’ at key times, expert says
An odd quirk of renewable energy in Australia is that the bulk of our rooftop solar panels are pointed in the wrong direction.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/renewable-energy-most-solar-panels-next-to-useless-at-key-times-expert-says-20170207-gu7vxr.html
72
A very quotable article.
His main point was “at key times”. However, the panels face north to maximise exposure and therefor return on investment (power to the grid = money).
Peter’s assumption is that the house wants to use the power produced by the solar panels, and his “at key times” is pointed at 5pm in the afternoon when the panels produce zero output.
61
O/T, the Conversation:
“During the recent heatwave in New South Wales, which saw record-breaking temperatures for two days in a row … ”
Wait. What?
BoM: “A heatwave is now defined by three or more days of unusually high maximum and minimum temperatures in any area.”
Trove: The Bathurst Times (NSW : 1909 – 1925) Tue 13 Jan 1914 Page 3 HEAT WAVE RECORDS.
“No Australian summer ever passes without its heatwave.”
Jan 1877
Bourke reached 127F (52.8C)
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/111510997
112
To assess this in the real world we need something that can keep track of all the energy that is consumed in all stages of production from the very beginning and works it all out up to and including operating costs.
This would need to include all the man hours of work etc.
The way to do this is very easy – just look at the price in a free market.
If these things are viable then they will earn more than they cost to buy and maintain. From what I have seen this does not appear to be the case.
111
There’s a lot about energy use computation and magic costing in this recent article:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/cuomos-gift-gas-15034.html
Our states can be more foolish than most jurisdictions without undue political blowback as most are surrounded by sensible neighbors.
In this case it is a revitalizing and grateful Pennsylvania that suffered thorough heavy industrial losses and coal industry losses, but
is surging because there is a lot of gas in those coal seams and New York is (quietly) buying a bunch.
Unsaid in the article is the degree to which NY energy use is mollified by a considerable out migration.
71
Leonard Read’s I,pencil talks about this phenomenon. Even something as simple as a pencil is almost impossible to calculate where and how it came into existence. However, all the information is implicitly embedded in the price, provided the pencil exists in a free market.
60
Photo voltaic is a great technology, useful in places where needs are basic and especially where there is no carbon fuel and there is no other fuel. A hospital in lawless war torn South Sudan for example, with a solar system to keep critical cold for antibiotics and with a battery backup, which is the major problem. In such cases the calculation is irrelevant as there is no alternative.
It is ludicrous that we are putting PV in Queensland where there is infinite energy. As pointed out, there is a 15 year cash back from future carbon credits, usually paid to the installer. Everyone else pays cash for these when buying their coal and gas based electricity. Then the lucky beneficiary gets to be paid for not using the power. This is all self indulgent, fake, bad economy and intended to make carbon fuel unprofitable and electricity too expensive, shutting manufacturing, farming, refrigeration. It is working according to the RET plan now published showing the rapid destruction of our electricity system. If you cannot afford to pay for power or run your business or keep a freezer, that is the plan.
The billions spent on windmills and solar are meant to cripple society. The excuse? Our Australian politicians on both sides are saving the planet, destroying the livelihoods and lives of their 24 million constituents so that the other 7,500 million have better weather. It is beyond belief.
180
The other problem is energy intensity and the land required for large scale solar, even without storage.
In 2010 all of our energy needs were amply supplied by abundant coal power. Power stations vanished from the inner city with clean, efficient and relative small power stations in green valleys with cooling ponds, far from people. Electricity was a wonderful and quite invisible and non invasive gift, after a century of building. So lets close them.
Sunlight on a summer’s day in middle Australia might be 1.5kw/square meter and could power the country, at least in summer during the day. However the area of land required for solar to replace coal would be immense plus the cost per unit area of solar panels.
Consider Climate Commissioner Prof Will Steffen’s profound statement (he is a real scientist) that the solar energy which impacts Victoria each year is double our (electrical) energy needs. He was right. Clever man with a calculator. However it would mean covering half of the entire state of Victoria in solar panels! The cost is in thousands of billions of dollars and where would we live, the grass, the trees, the birds, the insects? It shows how a PhD in chemistry does not really make you clever.
Plus the area would be so vast, the vast transmission losses would ruin this calculation,so the entire state would have to be covered in solar panels even without the batteries, so no power at night.
Perhaps we could live offshore in boats perhaps and import food? Now consider the lifespan of such a system. Twenty years? Thirty before it all has to be replaced. Plus the cleaning bill.
Solar has its place. Base load power is not the place. If windmills destroy landscape, solar shuts the farms.
Even the electric car of Elon Musk is utterly dependent on power. It does not have any power. It simply hides the source, moves the CO2 away from your house.
No one seriously believes solar or wind can replace coal, except Australia’s ignorant politicians on both sides of parliament who see the forced closure of our wonderful coal power stations as a win for them and their moral challenge. Why is beyond me.
Jo’s point though is that the energy cost of manufacture itself can exceed the return. That means often that the CO2 output to produce the solar panel exceeds the CO2 output saved by using the solar panel. What then is the point of replacing coal with solar?
It is not free energy and often saves no nett CO2.
152
TdeF: “The billions spent on windmills and solar are meant to cripple society.”
People tend to forget history, but the few who remember will raconteur in great detail how in ancient times, the powerful Dutch wind power elite formed a secret society in order to concentrate their domination and control of the wind,…. however,……in the process, …… what many fail to mention is that they became corrupted by their seemingly endless source of free energy and the power it gave them over their non-wind-power-owning neighbours.. The wind power, energy elite discovered they could use the wind power to operate printing presses, and this gave them, for the very first time, the ability to ‘print-money-out-of-thin-air’. Those who followed the traditional ways of becoming very rich by pillaging and theft, taking advantage of ones neighbour etc could not keep up with this new power to print money out of thin air and were soon outdone by the wind powered printing presses. Many of those rich pillagers and thief’s even had to borrow money from the money printing wind power elite just to keep up appearances….The wind power elite later went on from there and evolved into what are known today as ‘banks’.
41
Most notably, the elite Windmill owners also tried to scare the population with talk of rising sea levels and from then on were able to disguise the fact that their windmills were printing money practically around the clock without so much as to raise a single eyebrow..
51
TdeF:
That figure of 1.5kW per square metre is a little ambitious even further north than Victoria. A Theoretical upper amount of 1.0-1.2 kW per sq. metre (depending on season) was measured at a MAXIMUM of 760 and an average of 545 near Tennant Creek. It seems that there was some dust in the air; who would have thought that.
40
Sure. It is a maximum, so an exaggeration but enough to calculate that you need sun from half of Victoria plus storage just to power Victoria. That tells you sunshine is not strong enough compared to coal.
The sunniest place in the world is around Coonawarra in South Australia, famous for wine. Further north and the real Greenhouse gas is a problem despite the slightly higher angle of incidence.
31
So, let’s rip out all of the grapes and get some solar panels mounted.
40
By the time I’d written my reply you’d already posted again, and now ES has posted! so this will be a bit out of context but here goes anyway . . . . . .
Better weather in Australia too! And it’s already happening! Water in the dams again!
Were he alive, I suspect even Maurice Strong would be finding it beyond belief just how well the plans were working.
https://www.corbettreport.com/maurice-strong-is-dead/
71
The 40,000MW claimed for Germany is nameplate, not actual measured output. It might be as big as that on the rare sunny day but would produce nothing at night. In central Europe sun-hours are less than 50% of the time and still fully zero at night. In Sydney, solar power may be of use at latitude 33.86 degree S, but in Koln (Cologne) at latitude 50.56 degrees not so bright. Similar problems affect wind power which is also is intermittent, and unsuited to base-load. Only coal, gas, oil, nuclear or hydro power can run full-time, and when the power goes off, you really notice it, especially in winter. particularly in central Europe.
To avoid blackouts, you need about 100% backup on hand at the drop of a hat, regardless of your giant nameplate ‘renewable’ source.
161
Following on from Richard Ilfeld above, all input costs including energy costs are tracked in a free market so if something costs more to produce than revenue (energy) it generates then it won’t sell.
If subsidies and forced purchase of “renewables” are removed the free market will quickly sort itself out and the net energy consumers like solar and wind will be automatically removed from the marketplace.
Isn’t capitalism wonderful? It does all the required calculations automatically with no conscious input from anyone.
101
Are there any charts that show how many cubic meters of toxic chemical waste is produced, and what kind, by each power industry per Gigawatt, nuclear, solar, wind??
As we probably already know, the nuclear industry produces the most highly concentrated toxic waste without even talking about radiation as there are many who now claim it is harmless and so that’s already been covered.
So yes it would be really, really nice to know how many thousands of tons of toxic waste is produced, and exactly what kind to obtain a gigawatt of electricity according to the medium being used to generate it..
I suspect the nuclear industry will be the most toxic.
38
Most of the toxic waste from solar panel production and rare earth magnets for whirlygigs is created and stays in China so gangrenes don’t really count that. And the Chinese don’t care. It is a win-win situation for gangrenes and Chinese.
152
That’s brilliant David. Do you have children?
310
I didn’t say I agreed with it, I was just explaining the reality.
101
There is talk at the moment about an huge increase in mass animal deaths with photos and examples from around the globe. You would think that there would at least be a few who are looking at what is being done to the oceans in our care.
What is missing is information on the toxic waste, what kind, and how it is being stored if at all, per gigawatt according to the source of electricity.
26
The only talk i see is fake news.
Do you have any links to these claims?
41
“So yes it would be really, really nice to know how many thousands of tons of toxic waste is produced, and exactly what kind to obtain a gigawatt of electricity according to the medium being used to generate it..”
With all the focus on how much energy is used to create energy, is it possible for a mythical…… neural net to calculate the costs in terms of toxic waste per kilowatt hour for example.. ?? Then the neuurons would be able to decide what kind of electricity they would prefer based on the toxicity of the generating means. Chemical toxicity of course.
Can this highly endowed free market network of neurons figure out how many tons of waste is produced, how toxic it is, per say a gigawatt according to what is being used to produce it??
We already know about how many tons of CO2 is produced by coal, so how many tons of waste is produced, and what kind by the nuclear industry. Where is all the stuff being dumped?
How many giga tons of uranium tailings does it take to produce one gigawatt of nuclear power produce for example and all the other highly toxic waste??
23
No links then?
21
Links??
You must mean in the last 10 minutes
Gloucester Advocate: Gloucester News, sport and weather
http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/
17 mins ago – Major fish kill in Nowendoc River · Major fish kill in Nowendoc River. More than 400 dead fish were found by a local landholder in the Nowendoc River.
13
http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/story/4496754/major-fish-kill-in-nowendoc-river/?cs=435
Thing is this kind of phenomena is world wide. I do a “mass fish death” google search regularly and it is only on the rise.
15
Sure. Not a single mention of pollution as a cause for the example you post. Make you look pretty stu pid.
Mass fish deaths as news? You’d think it has never happened before humans.
Want to bet?
51
Thanks for providing a link, ES.
Here is a couple more:
ABC August 17, 2012, Climate change moves tropical fish south
“TONY EASTLEY: The CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) says [Doomsday Global Warming] is having a big impact on the country’s oceans, with tropical fish turning up as far south as Tasmania.”
ABC, 17 June, 2014: Thousands of dead fish washed up on Victoria’s Ninety Mile Beach were probably killed by cold Antarctic water, according to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).
. . .
How burning coal caused that is not explained, though it is blamed.
61
I can remember back when the barrier reef and everything was being killed by agricultural runoff. Times have changed
21
As for China, it would not be surprising or pessimistic to have suspicions that a vast proportion of its waste goes into the sea for us all to share. Surrounded by all this toxic progress makes talk about how much energy it costs to make energy seem a bit on the simplistic side.
Fairy tale energy economics without talking about the toxic environmental impacts. Where can any reasoned debate about the energy future of the world go without a heavy focus on the toxic impact of all kinds of energy generation??
14
It is clear.
It is just that there are many that do not know that they do not know anything about what kinds of chemical wastes are produced and how much is produced by the various sources of power per something as simple as a gigawatt..
34
ES, you are very lazy with language and have a hang-up with the word Toxic.
Salt water is very corrosive, what it can’t destroy it settles to the bottom of the ocean like a flocculent.
The ocean has a natural level of just about every mineral on the planet. Mercury and Gold included, in case you needed examples.
While the Chinese are polluting their own rivers and oceans, naff all of that will be getting far across the oceans. It’ll settle in the Bays and continental shelf not far off China. There is zero risk for the rest of us.
20
I always wondered if the attraction of wind and solar was the fantasy that it was free. For a population so fixated on surfing, windsurfing, sailing, sailboarding, paragliding and even snow skiing, is it the thrill of getting a ride for nothing? Of all these, surfing is the best. A board, a wave and a lot of paddling and for a few moments or minute, you can get a free ride out of life, master of the planet. Even dolphins love it. Something for nothing.
Are solar and windmills just attractive because they seem to be free, especially guilt free. Like Musks’ cars. You are not a polluter. The car was made overseas too. Such ideas appeal to the NIMBYs who want the CO2 in the next state or preferably in China. So China cops all the CO2 from making the solar panels and windmills and in Australia under the RET they are paid for by carbon taxes on everyone else’s power bills and you get a free ride and you might even get paid? It must be nice feeling getting so much for nothing and who cares about the people in China? A bit sad though when the fridge goes off, the elevators jam and the airport closes. Still, that is someone else’s problem.
152
The ability to print money out of thin air, first invented by the Dutch who noticed they could use the excess capacity of their windmills to operate money printing presses was a huge initial attraction to wind, and the ability to print money out of thin air has probably never left an elite few who do very well indeed out of it.
46
I see you have a problem with Musk’s cars being built overseas TdeF, will you have a problem after October 20th this year when EVERY new car in Australia is built overseas? Do you have a problem that most of the fuel for our vehicle fleet is from overseas? Do you have a problem with the many billions of dollars the car drivers of Australia export to oil rich countries every year?
47
I have a problem with Musk and his magic “Snake Oil”. A charmer he is.
The costs of energy in AU are artificially pushed up by things you, Willard, are in support of. If left to natural market conditions, the good people of Australia would have cheap electricity and could thereby easily afford liquid fuels.
93
Go ahead Mark, tell me exactly in detail what I’m in support of thats putting your energy bill up?
Also let’s clear this up, you want cheaper electricity so you have more money to buy more oil off countries that already have so much money in the first place.
27
So what?
Who are you to dictate where anyone spends their money?
How about you get down from your high horse.
60
Hit a nerve did I Raven? Go ahead and spend your hard-earned any way you want, go ahead and butt in any time you want also.
15
Quite the bully there Willard. Nice of you to recognize free speech.
I’m not going to bother rehashing what it is that you say and support that causes increases in the costs of energy. Everyone that reads what you type gets my point.
I don’t feel the least bit compelled to waste time on converting your mindset. You are likely a lost cause.
One thing I’ll offer though, because I’m kind, sell your stock in Tesla.
20
The great news Mark D is all that overseas OIL your buying is going to a good cause-http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/energy/2017/02/27/Saudi-Arabia-s-shift-to-solar-energy-will-save-up-to-87-billion.html , good for you Mark to help those poor people fund their solar panels, but wait there’s more-http://interfaxenergy.com/gasdaily/article/24145/tesla-taxis-show-shape-of-dubais-ev-ambitions , how’s that Mark, Dubai buying Tesla taxi’s, every time you fill up at the bowser you’re adding to Mr Musk’s bank account.
28
Snow skiing is hardly “free”.
Have you seen how much it costs to spend a weekend at Davo’s? 😉
10
the advocacy of so-called “climate scientists” for solar/wind, etc annoys the hell out of me but, perhaps, i’m in the minority, according to a cute Facebook experiment by George Mason’s Maibach & co!
26 Feb: Does Engagement in Advocacy Hurt the Credibility of Scientists? Results from a Randomized National Survey Experiment
Authors: John E. Kotcher, Teresa A. Myers, Emily K. Vraga, Neil Stenhouse, and ***Edward W. Maibach (Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason Uni, Fairfax, Virginia)
Abstract
It is often assumed that issue advocacy will compromise the credibility of scientists. We conducted a randomized controlled experiment to test public reactions to six different advocacy statements made by a scientist—ranging from a purely informational statement to an endorsement of specific policies. We found that perceived credibility of the communicating scientist was uniformly high in five of the six message conditions, suffering only when he advocated for a specific policy—building more nuclear power plants (although credibility did not suffer when advocating for a different specific policy—carbon dioxide limits at power plants). We also found no significant differences in trust in the broader climate science community between the six message conditions. Our results suggest that climate scientists who wish to engage in certain forms of advocacy have considerable latitude to do so without risking harm to their credibility, or the credibility of the scientific community…
(2009? PEW?) More recently, a large, nationally representative survey in the United States found that a substantial majority of Americans (76%) say it is appropriate for scientists to “become actively involved in political debates,” while small minorities say it is not appropriate (18%), or say they do not know (5%) (Pew Research Center, 2009)…
Following presentation of the biographical information, participants were randomly assigned to read one of six Facebook posts written by Dr. Wilson…ETC
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
52
Authors: John E. Kotcher, Teresa A. Myers, Emily K. Vraga, Neil Stenhouse, and ***Edward W. Maibach (Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason Uni, Fairfax, Virginia)
Is this the same Eddie Maibach of the recent GMU money grabbing scheme?
30
A few years ago China was exporting 90% of its panels, mainly to Europe and the US, but now they have been accused of dumping and will front the EU Commission in March. This is going to cause ructions between the climate change zealots and the economic rationalists.
The US is more clear cut, as the Administration mows down the Klimatariat there won’t be much demand for cheap PV.
Beijing sees Australia as a happy dumping ground for renewables, there is bipartisan stability on the issue of climate change, but that can’t last.
81
At the moment, Australia is a happy dumping ground for anything – other than brains and common sense.
60
The facts are that all of them are crazy. Simple maths and science and simple logic and reason.
S&W cannot make any measurable difference to temp by 2100 despite flushing tens of trillions of $ down the drain over the next 83 years.
As an investment it is a 100% guaranteed disaster and most pollies haven’t even got a very basic understanding of the simple maths involved.
And polar bears numbers will continue to boom, SLR will be about the same as the previous 100 years, hardly anyone will die from extreme weather events, a baby born today in the first world has an average life expectancy of 90+ years.( now 80+ years and just 40 in 1800 and about 50 in 1900)
Antarctica has been cooling slightly over the last 40 years, Greenland temps increased at a faster rate in the earlier 20th century than today and two recent PR world glacier studies have shown a slowing of retreat since 1950. Where’s the problem we’re supposed to fix? Here’s Prof Hans Rosling’s ignorance video at his huge TED talk and his health and wealth video of the last 200 years. From poor and sick in 1810 to healthy and wealthy today. Well worth 4 minutes of your time.
Just a pity our pollies are too stupid and ignorant to view or understand any of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg&t=49s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&t=7s
62
I’m sorry the videos above need to be adjusted to start at beginning of the videos.
31
Tweed Valley Weekly, 23 Feb, 2017, page 23:
Blackouts and how you can protect yourself
“There has been a number of blackouts in the northern rivers region from inclement weather and severe thunderstorms.
A common misconception is that if you have solar on your roof and there is a blackout during the day, your system should still work right?
The answer is NO, it will not work unless you have a battery connected to the system with a backup function.
In the event of a blackout your inverter will automatically turn off and disconnect.
This is a integrated safety feature that is compulsory on all solar inverters that are connected to the grid in order to protect
the safety workers from getting electrocuted from your solar system.”
http://www.tweedvalleyweekly.net.au/february-23-2017/
50
In theory, you could open the isolator to the supply grid. Then run a small inverter on a batter to generate a “grid is alive” 240 V AC voltage and plug it into a house wall outlet which will liven up the whole house. This should be enough for the inverter to sense, turn on, and provide power to the house.
I have never tried this, so cannot guarantee if it would work. You would need to be very careful too.
Assuming inverters dont have a double interlock to sense an open grid-connect isolator on the house power board and also that they are also not smart enough to sense an inverter generated 240 V AC vs a grid 240V AC, then it should work…
Its a bit like a compressed air truck to start a jet…
40
That idea may work…Or a completely ‘do it yourself’ solar setup with parts bought from Alibaba and stuff the grid!
10
In the Wiki article I noted the very last chart of “Other Significant Solar Farms” and was intrigued by the quoted capacity factors. They ranged from na to 13%. For me as an illiterate that says the farms are producing less than 13% of the nameplate capacity. At least a coal plant produces 100% when required but the measly amount coming from these solar farms is available only at certain times and only if the sun is shining.
We are governed by fools whom we keep electing.
81
I may have been wrong with generating your own power being subject to Small Scale Technology Certificates. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) 2000 Act talks about ‘Liable entities’ which are ‘certain purchasers’ and about GST. So as long as you do not sell power between entities, you would not pay. So it could be far cheaper and more reliable to buy your own generator, an absurdity. The whole idea of moving the power out of town was a cleaner environment. Still the Submarine Corporation is spending $30Million on its own reliable diesel engine to supply its own power. This is comic/tragic.
Anyway, a quick check on the internet shows
About 12kWh per US gallon of fuel burned, so if diesel costs $1.80 per liter and 3.8litres per US gallon, that is $6.84 for 12kwhr, 57 cents per kWh for electricity. Unfortunately in Australia you run into the fact that petrol and diesel are 80% tax already, like electricity. In the US, diesel is $2.30 a gallon, so $US50c a litre. We just pay too much tax on everything and worse, the RET tax does not even go to our government but profiteers with windmills to sell.
91
The tax on petrol and diesel in Australia is no where near 80% TdeF.
26
Willard old mate,
You will find they are pretty close to 80%.
And if you think that is high, have a crack at alcohol and cigarettes.
41
The average price for Diesel in Australia has hovered around $1.27 for the past few weeks, go ahead and explain the tax on that $1.27 and how it equates to 80%.
22
The Australian Institute of Petroleum say,
20
Federal government excise of very close to 40 cents per litre plus GST on final price, thereabouts 42% of $1.27. When Singapores carbon tax takes effect expect that to be passed on the Australian motorists.
22
Not levied on all usage, either. Some industry usage is exempt.
30
Not exempt. Some get their tax back so they can call it a subsidy. Doug
20
Willard old mate.
If I use the WTI price plus refining plus transport plus retailing I get $0.37/litre.
So you are right, the taxes are only 71% which is no where near 80% – you goose.
30
Reverting to name calling when you realise you’ve failed basic arithmetic Toorightmate, it’s not 80%, it’s not 71%, you’re not even close.
12
Try 34 cents plus GST. I am not up to date.
30
TdeF:
Were all those costs in $A? And did you allow for the smaller US gallon (3.78 Litres)?
30
Yes, US gallons. I used $US in the US and $A in Australia. Exchange rate is to do with trade issues. Until relatively recently Australia produced all its own petrol but that is heading overseas too.
30
I wonder if friend Willis also realises that diesel comes off the same fraction on the fractionating column as Avgas.
So when the world starts using a lot of diesel, up goes the price of Avgas (a la 2006).
30
nothing political about CAGW:
27 Feb: Daily Caller: Chris White: Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ Says ‘Climate Deniers’ Suffer Psychological Delusions
Bill Nye said Monday that climate change skeptics suffer from a psychological problem preventing them from understanding how so-called man-made global warming affects their daily lives.
Climate change skeptics suffer from cognitive dissonance on global warming, a type of psychological disorder that prevents people from recognizing reality, the comedian and former TV show host told Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during a Facebook Live event.
“To the deniers out there. I want you to think about what is called cognitive dissonance,” Nye said, referring to situations wherein people prefer to bury their head in the sand instead of facing reality. It’s up to environmentalists and everybody else to save skeptics from themselves, he added.
“Instead of accepting that the climate is changing, deniers are denying the evidence and dismissing the authorities” simply because they don’t want to face a harsh reality, Nye said.
“I know it may not be very popular thing to say, but the long-term implications of doing nothing about climate change are catastrophic,” Nye said about what could happen if Americans don’t take seriously President Donald Trump’s skepticism…
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/27/bill-nye-the-science-guy-says-climate-deniers-suffer-psychological-delusions/
27 Feb: CBS: Shanika Gunaratna: “A sense of despair”: The mental health cost of unchecked climate change
But looking beyond the physical, experts are also trying to sound the alarm about the quieter, more insidious effects of climate change: namely, that global warming is threatening the emotional health of humans worldwide.
“We see a sense of despair that sets in as inevitably Mother Nature, who we think of as our nurturing force, tells us we’re not going to be able to survive the conditions she’s set for us,” Dr. Lise Van Susteran, a practicing psychiatrist and expert on the dangers of climate change on mental health, told CBS News…
Study after study shows that climate change has led to an increased burden of psychological disease and injury worldwide, particularly in developing countries.
What’s behind this link? For starters, climate change has normalized extreme weather events. These events, including floods, tornadoes, fires, drought, and sea level rise, are known to trigger mental health problems including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, the abuse of alcohol and drugs, and more.
Extreme weather has a particularly disturbing link to increased aggression. In 2013, researchers from Princeton University and the University of California-Berkeley found that even slight spikes in temperature and precipitation have increased the risk of personal violence and social upheaval throughout human history…
Van Susteren: “You can see how desperate, angry, despairing people are,” she said. “It’s a legitimate response to what people see as inaction, intentional inaction… Whether we know it or not, whether you accept it or not, everyone experiences climate anxiety.”
Seen through a certain lens, inaction on global warming meets the criteria of child abuse for future generations, she said.
“When children believe their parents didn’t do something right, or did something wrong, they spend a whole lifetime feeling abandoned. What in the world are future generations going to think or feel when they know that action could have been taken?”…
***“In times of peril and scarcity, people regress,” she said. “They turn to what they perceive as strong leaders to protect them, and are willing to give up their freedoms and values in exchange for perceived security.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/despair-mental-health-trauma-cost-unchecked-climate-change/
Wikipedia: Lise van Susteren: In 2005, she sought the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate in Maryland…
has worked as a consultant to the Central Intelligence Agency conducting psychological assessments of world leaders…
In September 2006, Vice President Al Gore trained Van Susteren at The Climate Project to educate the public about global warming. She was named to the Board of Directors of The Climate Project in 2009…
In 2011, Van Susteren collaborated with “Our Children’s Trust” in a lawsuit against the federal government for breach of its fiduciary duties to preserve and protect the atmosphere for children and future generations.
61
(1) “…as inevitably Mother Nature, who we think of as our nurturing force…..”
(2) “Dr. Lise Van Susteran, a practicing psychiatrist and expert on the dangers of climate change on mental health, told CBS News… Study after study shows that climate change has led to an increased burden of psychological disease and injury worldwide, particularly in developing countries.”
(3) “Van Susteren: “You can see how desperate, angry, despairing people are,” she said. “It’s a legitimate response to what people see as inaction, intentional inaction… Whether we know it or not, whether you accept it or not, everyone experiences climate anxiety.”
Seen through a certain lens, inaction on global warming meets the criteria of child abuse for future generations, she said.”
The last bit is a tad scary – this setsin place for a modern day psycobabble witch hunt against deniers…it also shows you how desperate they are if they are pushing “think of the children” line, the refuge of tyrants.
CAGW zealots seem to be a bit *different* …. shall we say….
51
Bill Nye and Bernie Sanders – what a dynamic duo.
51
It’s curious how once intelligent people go so far off the reservation as to become total imbeciles.
The old saying “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad” attests to this phenomena being a very old one.
30
Sort of fits here
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/27/delingpole-president-trump-must-not-wobble-climate-change-whatever-ivanka-says/
40
27 Feb: The Conversation: Germany’s plan for 100% electric cars may actually increase carbon emissions
by Dénes Csala, Lecturer in Energy Storage Systems Dynamics, Lancaster University
Germany has ambitious plans for both electric cars and renewable energy. But it can’t deliver both. As things stand, Germany’s well-meaning but contradictory ambitions would actually boost emissions by an amount comparable with the present-day emissions of the entire country of Uruguay or the state of Montana…
The basic problem is that an electric car running on power generated by dirty coal or gas actually creates more emissions than a car that burns petrol. For such a switch to actually reduce net emissions, the electricity that powers those cars must be renewable. And, unless things change, Germany is unlikely to have enough green energy in time.
After all, news of the potential petrol car ban came just after the chancellor, Angela Merkel, had announced she would slow the expansion in new wind farms as too much intermittent renewable power was making the grid unstable…
In an analysis published in Nature, my colleague Harry Hoster and I have looked at how Germany’s electricity and transport policies are intertwined. They each serve the noble goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, when combined, they might actually lead to increased emissions…READ ON
https://theconversation.com/germanys-plan-for-100-electric-cars-may-actually-increase-carbon-emissions-72997
61
And Denes Csalas has already made the admission he forget to include the emissions from the oil refinery process in his calculations, oops someone gave this guy a job at Lancaster university.
36
The German proposal is to phase out the SALE of new internal combustion engine CARS by 2030, it is not a proposal to have every mode of transport on Germany electric by 2030, this guy is a university lecturer but he can’t understand the difference, I wonder how many DM articles he used to prepare his “study”.
36
Willard old mate,
You obviously have not met many university lecturers.
I would not let the majority of university lecturers that I have met mow my lawn.
63
It could be worse, they could be serving you food in a restaurant while studying to be a lecturer.
22
Ignoring the power to manufacture for a moment. Anyone who needs “power” in a vehicle needs to run on fuel. It’s impossible and stupid to even think you could get close to 100%. If you tow a boat/caravan, if you tow a trailer with your building equipment in it, or if you run your car over the quarter mile or rally route of a weekend, you need real power.
I hit the highway at 6:30 of a morning and the majority of vehicles on the road are fully laden utes and trucks heading off to do a days work. There is simply no replacement for power sources for these vehicles.
32
Just to clarify Greg, are you saying an electric. motor doesn’t have the power (and torque) necessary to perform tasks such as towing a heavy trailer, running a 1/4 mile and other jobs performed by cars/SUVs/light commercials?
10
Here’s one for you Greg, a 2500kg production electric vehicle towing a trailer carrying an Alfa 4C turbo racing against another Alfa 4C turbo, in effect an electric vehicle towing a trailer and racing the 1/4 mile at the same time, but please go ahead and tell me how this is impossible and stupid?- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s9k1KaoNDHw
00
You can race anything. You’re video doesn’t show how the race went, it only showed the start of the race. Who won? by how far? What was the trap speed?
And it doesn’t support the notion of pulling a trailer or a load of any sort. It was a short burst run, which is a long way from doing a days work with a load.
12
Race was won by the EV pulling a trailer.
Didn’t see that coming did you Greg?
21
Keep the race short though
yes… we know electric motors have torque.
They need to have to carry all those batteries.
01
I would ask: where did the DC power come from Willard? Did they bank 10 days of solar to do the drag race?
Or did they suck up a bunch of carbon?
01
Most likely got the “DC” power from an AC power outlet, keep building your case Mark, I’m keen to hear the point you’re trying to make.
10
“and racing the 1/4 mile at the same time”
Wow….. but how much further !!!
Would be HILARIOUS to see an EV tow a laden trailer from say, Batesman Bay to Canberra.
A regular left-wing public servant trip, btw. 🙂
Do YOU own an EV yet, dullard, or are you just mouth ???
(second vehicle necessary for all but short commuter work.)
13
I lived in Queanbeyan for a while, had a Ford XE with “tight” suspension and a 3.3L stock-car racing engine in it.
Man was that thing FUN on the Kings Highway – Batesman – Queanbeyan road 🙂
12
3.8L !!
02
so long ago, so many cars !! 4.1L
02
Canberra-Bateman bay 150kms? model X SUV should do that return trip no problem pulling a van.
3.3 was the 200ci
4.1 the 250ci
Good drive trains, shame the fit and finish couldn’t keep up.
00
28 Feb: Australian: David Crowe: Newspoll: 45 per cent won’t pay more for energy renewables
Voters have rung the alarm on the hit to household budgets from a shift to renewable power, with 45 per cent declaring they should not pay a cent more to make the change, amid a furious political fight over energy security.
A special Newspoll conducted exclusively for The Australian also finds that 26 per cent of voters are only willing to pay $10 a month at the most for solar and wind power, sending a warning shot over ambitious renewable energy targets…
With all sides in dispute over the impact of renewables on electricity prices and reliability, the government had a surprise boost yesterday when the Clean Energy Finance Corporate revealed a proposal for a new coal-fired power station.
The government’s green bank, charged with investing $10 billion in energy projects, told a Senate hearing that a private company was seeking a government subsidy to build a $1.2bn, 900-megawatt coal-fired station…
While Labor and the Greens believe voters want more wind and solar power to combat climate change, the Newspoll shows an overwhelming majority of voters are unwilling to pay a premium for the transition.
Asked how much more they would be willing to pay for renewables annually, 45 per cent said nothing, 26 per cent said $100 and 11 per cent said $300…
???The Australia Institute released a ReachTel poll yesterday showing 54.5 per cent of voters in the Queensland seat of Dawson — held by the Liberal National Party’s George Christensen — backed a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. The poll did not ask about cost.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/newspoll-45-per-cent-wont-pay-more-for-energy-renewables/news-story/bb58e0788e14bb664c8bfc60c3f7d286
21
That total of 40,000MW is Nameplate only, and even on the most sunny of days with zero overcast, even that 40,000MW total will NEVER be reached.
The average Capacity Factor (CF) is the standard for all power generation, in other words, the amount of power actually delivered ….. and that is taken (the Industry Standard) across a whole year to cover everything.
It’s of no use saying that at that most sunny point in time on a Summer’s day, the solar plant is delivering … and they quote the best figure they can get ….. BECAUSE, that of itself gives the average punter in the street the false impression that a solar plant actually can deliver the large amounts of power being quoted, and in this case it’s the (quoted) 40,000MW.
In the case of solar PV power that (average) CF is (around) 17%.
So, straight away, that Nameplate now equates (in actual power delivery terms) to only 17% of 40,000MW or an equivalent power of only 6800MW.
So then. let’s have a look at why I can actually say this, and not be accused of just making it up.
People see that power delivery from a solar plant, and proponents always claim the highest figure they can get.
That is at one point in time during the day. It’s not spread across the whole day as soon as the Sun pops its head above the Horizon, and stays there till it sinks below the Horizon again.
It’s at one point in time across the whole day of daylight only.
Here, I have purposely chosen the best days of power generation I can find for a large scale solar PV installation, if only to show you what happens on those good days, one day at the height of Summer, and one day in mid Winter.
This is for an installation with a Nameplate of 5.796MW
The first image is shown at this link. This is a the mid Summer day and this is 30Dec2016. Power begins to be generated at 5.30AM and drops back to zero at 6.30PM. The Peak is at around Midday and is 4.740MW. So, even on the Sunniest of days in the middle of Summer with zero overcast, that maximum is still not reaching the total Nameplate, and is only 81.7%. It doesn’t reach half total until around 7.30AM and drops below half at around 4PM. And absolutely nothing from, well, in reality around twelve hours, because the tiny amounts of power at the front and back end are all but useless.
The second image is shown at this link. This is a mid Winter day and this is 03Jul2016. Power is not being generated until 7AM, and drops back to zero at 5PM. Even in full Sun with zero overcast the maximum Peak is 3.577MW at around Midday. That is only 61.7% of the maximum power of the installation. But note here the bell curve shape of the power generation. It doesn’t reach half the maximum (for this bell curve image) total until 9AM and then drops below half a little after 3PM. And absolutely nothing from, well, in reality, 16 hours.
That is why that CF is around 17% for solar PV. So for this installation, that CF, expressed as a total of Nameplate is NOT the total Nameplate of just on 6MW, but is only 1MW.
See the distinction there?
The average punter in the street sees the quoted Nameplate of a solar PV plant and thinks, hey great, that sounds okay to me. The truth will never be explained, because if it is, people will see it for what it really is.
If you had a brand new Commodore (indicative choice of car only) that would only get you to your destination one time in six, would that be acceptable to you?
So let’s now substitute a coal fired plant of the same Nameplate. (as for this solar PV installation)
While ever you feed coal into the unit, then draw a line across the page at the maximum Nameplate, 5.796MW, and it stays there, delivering the maximum for as long as you feed coal into it.
You can argue all the esoteric things you like to about renewables, but until you actually deliver LIKE POWER FOR LIKE POWER, then the argument is moot.
When you have solar PV which only delivers on this basis, then you have not enough power to run, well, anything at all with.
And be aware here, I have chosen two days of highest power delivery, so if I am to be accused of cherry picking, well, I’m actually cherry picking the absolute BEST case scenarios, aren’t I.
Tony.
233
BoM, Jan 8, 2008: This drought may never break.
“IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.
“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.
Feb 27, 2017 The Conversation, David Jones, Climate Scientist, Australian Bureau of Meteorology:
Explainer: what is ‘precipitable water’, and why does it matter?
” In late December 2016, heavy rainfall across central and southeast Australia was associated with record-high December precipitable water, with weather stations in Giles and Mount Gambier recording their highest values for any month.
Heavy rains have continued over the western part of Australia through January 2017.”
. . .
Should we now call the ‘precipitable water’ permanent?
113
They are moving the goal posts yet again.
Not a word on the wayward jetstream …. deplorable.
52
“precipitable water”. That sounds as if it could be catastrophic or cataclysmic.
On Monday we had the lovely Lisa Wilkinson (red bandana’s missus) telling us that eastern Australia was going to experience extreme weather. In Brisbane it has been extremely nice. There is just no stopping Lisa. She is now a climate/weather expert. Good old Chanel 9, the Science Chanel.
52
The whole Australian continent is dry, that why eucalyptus took over in this part of Gwandanaland.
21
about the writer: Robert Bryce is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author, most recently, of “Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong.”
a must-read:
27 Feb: LA Times Op-Ed: Wind power is an attack on rural America
by Robert Bryce
Urban voters may like the idea of using more wind and solar energy, but the push for large-scale renewables is creating land-use conflicts in rural regions from Maryland to California and Ontario to Loch Ness.
Since 2015, more than 120 government entities in about two dozen states have moved to reject or restrict the land-devouring, subsidy-fueled sprawl of the wind industry.
The backlash continued last month when a judge in Maryland ruled that the possible benefits of a proposed 17-turbine project did “not justify or offset subjecting the local community to the adverse impacts that will result from the wind project’s construction and operation.”…
Three years ago, the late David J.C. MacKay, then a professor at the University of Cambridge, calculated that wind energy requires about 700 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a fracking site.
Rural residents are objecting to wind projects to protect their property values and viewsheds. They don’t want to live next door to industrial-scale wind farms. They don’t want to see the red-blinking lights atop the turbines, all night, every night for the rest of their lives. Nor do they want to be subjected to the audible and inaudible noise the turbines produce.
Even in California, which has mandated that 50% of the electricity sold in the state be produced from renewable energy sources by 2030, there is resistance to wind power…
In New York, angry fishermen are suing to stop an offshore wind project that could be built in the heart of one of the best squid fisheries on the Eastern Seaboard. Three upstate counties — Erie, Orleans and Niagara — as well as the towns of Yates and Somerset, are fighting a proposed 200-megawatt project that aims to put dozens of turbines on the shores of Lake Ontario…
Outside the U.S., about 90 towns in Ontario have declared themselves “unwilling hosts” to wind projects…READ ALL
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-bryce-backlash-against-wind-energy-20170227-story.html
32
LA Times? Amazing!
21
CHAPTER 1. Sun and Shadow
Charles Dickens on extreme weather.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/963/963-h/963-h.htm
61
That really brought back memories of Cyprus on a hot day back in the 1960s!
All very Mediterranean.
30
How odd that someone should have red-thumbed you for quoting Charles Dickens?
20
I wouldn’t take it personally, they probably had great expectations or they’ve fallen on hard times.
60
another must-read:
28 Feb: Australian: Nick Cater: Coca-Cola the latest to run out of gas in South Australia
News that Coca-Cola will be closing its Adelaide bottling plant was greeted with the Premier’s customary shrug.
“Well, we’ll fund a career and transition service,” Jay Weatherill told radio listeners last week. “For each worker it’ll be about $2500 for training.”…
Education and training, unsurprisingly, is a growth industry in South Australia; 17,000 jobs have been created in the sector since Labor came to power 1½ decades ago, jobs that are either paid for or subsidised by government.
Some 15,000 more South Australians have found employment in a sector the statisticians call administration and safety. The Australian Bureau of Statistics defines their jobs as “the setting of policy; the oversight of government programs; collecting revenue to fund government programs; creating statute laws and by-laws; and distributing public funds”…
The number of Australians working in state and territory public services will pass the 1.5 million mark this year, an increase of 152,000 in eight years. The wage bill has grown at twice the rate of inflation from $77 billion in 2007-08 to $114bn last year. Victoria — wouldn’t you know it — is the worst offender, with a 19 per cent increase in headcount and a 31 per cent rise in payroll…
BHP chief executive Andrew Mackenzie warned last week that the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine that could revive the state’s fortunes was unlikely to go ahead without a secure supply of energy.
“Let’s talk about affordability, reliability and emissions reduction, as opposed to having some secondary target about just having more renewables, which might deny you all three,” Mackenzie told journalists in London.
One might have expected some contrition from the Premier when he spoke to journalist David Penberthy on 5AA the next morning. Not a bit of it.
“It’s a coal company,” said Weatherill. “So let’s put this in context, they do have a dog in this fight — they have an interest in protecting the coal industry.”…READ ALL
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/nick-cater/cocacola-the-latest-to-run-out-of-gas-in-south-australia/news-story/5d36397663daa3e8d0930554e44672a6
52
It would be fantastic if we could work towards increasing the number of wealth makers rather than the number of wealth takers in Australia.
70
and another…
27 Feb: Breitbart: JAMES DELINGPOLE: President Trump Must Not Wobble on Climate Change – Whatever Ivanka Says…
A daughter can make a man do almost anything. I know: I’ve got one and I am putty in her hands.
If she wants a pony and bats her eyelashes at me, I’ll be off in a trice to buy her a herd. Baby unicorn ponies, if that’s what she prefers…
I’ve said it before but it’s worth saying again: if President Trump proves to be as radical on energy and climate as he promised to be on the campaign trail, then this, even if he achieves nothing else, will more than qualify him for a place next to the greats on Mt Rushmore.
He will go down in history as the hero who slew ManBearPig: the president who, unlike his pusillanimous, career-safe, Establishment predecessors from Clinton and the Bushes to the ultimate horror that was Obama, finally had the courage, integrity and honesty to point out that the Climate Emperor is wearing no clothes; the guy who brought to the end the greatest scientific scandal ever; who saved Western Industrial Civilisation from the Watermelons…
The hard part will be dealing with all the obstacles thrown in his way by the monstrously large group of special interests sometimes known as the Green Blob and sometimes as the Climate Industrial Complex.
Ivanka and Jared Kushner are part of that Green Blob. So is Hollywood. So is most of the mainstream media. So are most of the colleges, corporations, law firms, NGOs, local governments, schoolteachers, and even significant elements of the Republican party, like the GOP grandees currently agitating to introduce a Carbon Tax…
To get an idea of how big the problem is you should have been there at CPAC at the weekend, as I was, when Scott Pruitt – the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, was asked what he thought about man-made climate change…READ ALL
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/27/delingpole-president-trump-must-not-wobble-climate-change-whatever-ivanka-says/
32
If it had been done to get a better EROEI then they would never have done it, would they? IT WAS ALL IDEOLOGY, no actually worse than that but probably Jo wouldn’t want me to say what I think.
But there’s one joke I’m going to enjoy, even though I won’t ever see it. Eventually the view from space will show the whole state of California in the dark at night while the rest of the country and the world is bathed in glorious artificial light. Serves them right and I say that even though I live here.
30
While I still have a property to sell in California, I have successfully moved back to the Midwest as of last week. I miss the sunshine and open spaces but I don’t miss the psychotic politics and social policies.
60
Congrats Lionell. You’ll feel better and probably live longer for the move.
10
Good fortune with the move Lionell. If you are near Minnesota let me buy you lunch sometime.
10
And don’t forget to change your head to a blue octagon
20
I hold my breath too long hoping that you will one day have sense. Leaf long and prosper
20
same to you monobrow
00
It’s Mr. Unibrow to you, weed.
10
Gentlemen,
If you care to get serious I know where you can get a pair of genuine 1804 dueling pistols. They were only used once before the untimely death of their owner forced them into retirement so they’re in near mint condition. The price might be a bit high for your budget though. 😉
20
Will they blow up in our faces like our jokes?
30
I might be in moderation for mentioning Charles D–kens.
20
27 Feb: The Hill: Devin Henry: Trump to propose 24 percent cut in EPA spending: reports
The Trump administration plans to propose a one-forth to cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget, a plan that would end up laying off 20 percent of the agency’s staffers, according to reports.
Trump officials will propose a $6.1 billion for the EPA next year, a $2 billion cut from current levels, according to reports in E&E News and Politico, citing sources.
The agency’s staffing levels would fall to 12,000 workers, from 15,000 currently, according to the reports…
If the EPA cuts were realized, the agency’s budget would be at its lowest level since the early 1990s, and its staffing levels would be lower than any time since the 1980s.
It’s unclear if Congress will be willing to accept cuts as deep as those Trump is set to propose for the EPA…
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/321481-trump-to-propose-24-percent-cut-in-epa-spending-reports
21
time for a laugh:
VIDEO: 9mins22secs: 27 Feb: Breitbart: Jeff Poor: Watch: Tucker Carlson, Bill Nye Spar Over Climate Change
“So much of this you don’t know,” Carlson said. “You pretend that you know, but you don’t know, and you bully people who ask questions.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/27/watch-tucker-carlson-bill-nye-spar-climate-change/
81
funny from start to finish, tho Harrabin wouldn’t see it that way…read it all:
28 Feb: BBC: Roger Harrabin: UK ‘must insulate 25 million homes’
***More than one home every minute will need to be refurbished in the UK between now and 2050, experts say…
The UK needs to cut carbon emissions by 80% by then – and a third of those emissions come from heating draughty buildings.
The government said it would devise policies as soon as possible…
Local authorities have limited cash to insulate council homes, and landlords and owner-occupiers have proved reluctant to invest large sums in disruptive improvements that will save on bills, but take many years to pay off…
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39107973
41
FakeNews:
23 Feb: Sustainability Victoria: Press Release: Victorians say climate change is real and humans are contributing to it
An independent survey commissioned by Sustainability Victoria involved more than 3,300 people across Melbourne and regional Victoria.
Sustainability Victoria CEO, Stan Krpan, says more than 90 per cent of Victorians accept the science that climate change is caused by human activity. One-in-three rank climate change in their top three concerns.
“These figures demonstrate that climate change is not an ‘outlier’ issue and that we have reached a tipping point. A very substantial majority of people clearly expect action to be taken by all levels of government, business and individuals.” …
“This survey is looking for solutions, new businesses, products and services that will reduce the impact of climate change. They want action to happen now (77 per cent).”
“With just seven per cent saying there is no such thing as climate change or that it is entirely natural, the debate is over and it is time to get on with the job of transition.” …
Mr Krpan said there was strong support for renewable energy sources like wind and solar generation with 82 per cent agreeing they could do meaningful things to reduce the impact of climate change.
“As Australians have a reputation for being early adopters of new technologies there is a ready market for businesses which act now with 75% of respondents interested in 100% renewable energy and 71% were interested in storing their own electricity via batteries.”…
http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/news-and-events/media-releases/2017/2/23/victorians-say-climate-change-is-real-and-humans-are-contributing-to-it
well-suited for the job:
LinkedIn: Stan Krpan, Chief Executive Officer at Sustainability Victoria
https://au.linkedin.com/in/stan-krpan-5215507b
41
I wonder who they asked? Not me, for sure!
30
Of course not.
You give wrong answers.
/sarc
50
The welfare Sates of Australia:
Tasmania
South Australia
and soon to be…..Victoria.
Absolute madness!
40
They sample 3,300 people and then they say that 90% of Victoriastan say that “climate change is real?No wonder they got the election of”President Trump”wrong.
30
Why not be honest and say “97% of all gullible dic$heads in Victoria …..”?
20
George Christensen has resigned as the Nationals chief whip, hinting that he doesn’t want his hands tied behind his back in the battle ahead.
40
And talking of electrical energy, at 4.20pm today, Ararat Wind Farm is delivering minus 1% of its 240MW nameplate capacity, and nearby Waubra 0% of 192MW. While in world leading South Australia, Snowtown 0% of 144 MW, Hornsdale 0% of 102MW, Hallet 1% of 94MW, but fear not, Snowtown South is delivering 34% of 126MW. Meanwhile over in the Latrobe Valley, the soon to be destroyed Hazelwood coal-fired station is running at 90% of capacity, while Loy Yang B is at 106% of capacity.
Current spot price in SA $218/MWh, in Vic $134/MWh.
Any politicians out there listening?
110
SA news…..expect power blackouts tonight due to extreme heat wave
60
We are on the furry edge wind 48meg, interconnect 700 meg gas maxed out
50
If SA get blackouts again I wonder what excuse weatherdill has dreamed up this time .
50
Extreme weather of course
50
At the moment it is extremely “unwindy” in SA.
40
Bah . . there won’t be any extreme weather.
Windmills were introduced to eliminate extreme weather. 😉
40
SA channel 10 news aemo has directed pelican point to turn on its moth balled gas turbine this is a with Hazelwood giving us over 700 mW can’t wait for 31 MAR 17.
10
And …
Midnight Oil have reformed and were going to change their name to Midnight Solar in protest particularly about the “ugliness” of US president Donald Trump and One Nation founder Pauline Hanson, but, the name change doesn’t work and has no energy.
Cue the sad trombone …
62
Only playing daytime gigs then?
60
they could rename themselves ‘pink bats’ or ‘the Budget Blowouts’…. haw about that ?
51
CAGW = BS
52
27 Feb: ClimateChangeNews: Terry Macalister: EU clashes with maritime industry over ship emissions
If the UN shipping body does not regulate climate pollution in international waters, EU lawmakers want to include the industry in the bloc’s carbon market
The European Parliament has lost patience with shipping industry inaction over climate change1 and has outlined plans to include vessels in its Emissions Trading System (ETS).
Ship owners are furious, claiming it is wrong that they will effectively be charged for carbon pollution in Europe Union waters ahead of any wider international arrangement…
Maritime transport is estimated to produce around 1,000 million tonnes of carbon annually and is responsible for about 2.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
It is predicted that CO2 output will increase by between 50% and 250% by 2050, depending on future economic and energy developments.
“This is not compatible with the internationally-agreed goal of keeping global temperature increase to below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, which requires worldwide emissions to be at least halved from 1990 levels by 2050,” the European Commission explains…
The irony is that the ETS has not worked well so far, leaving the price of carbon much lower than expected due to the heavy number of exemptions given to other land-based polluting industries already covered by the scheme.
Ships tend to burn the dirtiest fuel oils, but they are a very carbon-efficient form of transport compared to road or air because of the heavy volumes they can carry…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/27/eu-clashes-with-maritime-industry-over-ship-emissions/
27 Feb: CarbonPulse: CDM board delves deeper into voluntary market to save its struggling scheme
The CDM’s executive board has decided to reach out to companies involved in voluntary offsetting and wider corporate responsibility efforts in an attempt to shore up more appetite for CERs, which continue to languish below €0.30 amid scarce demand…
41
pat:
Any attempt to include marine emissions will end Denmark’s claim to have reduced CO2 emissions.
This will detract from their efforts which have had some success e.g. introduction of over 600 CHP units (mostly gas fired), use of ‘waste’ heat from coal fired stations to heat houses, swimming pools, de-icing roads etc. It is a pity they wasted so much money on building and subsidising those useless wind turbines but their other more practical efforts should be acknowledged, even if they were possible only in a cold climate.
30
Graeme No.3 –
am not convinced maritime & aviation sectors will ever agree to mandatory globalist control of their emissions:
27 Feb: TheConversationUK: Flight to greener aviation fuel has hit turbulence – here’s why
by Simon Blakey, Senior Lecturer of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield
(Disclosure: Simon Blakey receives funding from the European Union, Innovate UK and Aviation OEMs)
Our research in collaboration with Manchester Metropolitan University and Missouri University of Science and Technology has shown that greener aviation fuels could cut not only carbon emissions but also reduce wider air pollution and improve air quality – a key issue in the ongoing debate around Heathrow’s proposed expansion.
The landmark 2015 Paris Agreement on addressing climate change did not include two sectors – aviation and maritime. This is despite aviation accounting for 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions. This figure is growing by around 3% a year. Attempts to decarbonise the aviation sector have been complicated…
The process has been delayed by governments trying to agree on how to account for emissions – if a Dutch airline takes off in America and lands in Brazil, which country should take the responsibility for those emissions? The good news is that, in the autumn of 2016, the world’s governments came together under the UN’s specialist agency for aviation, the ICAO and finally reached an agreement. But this agreement is still voluntary and allows airlines to “offset” their carbon emissions…
Beyond this, the industry has set itself a target to achieve carbon-neutral growth by 2020 and to halve emissions by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. This ambition can only be achieved by a combination of efforts including improvements in engine and airframes, such as new materials to make aircraft lighter, a more emissions-optimised approach to air traffic management and, crucially, by introducing greener alternatives to jet fuel…
Sustainability: We need to ensure that the production of alternative fuels works for the environment and people in the regions where these are produced. So, for example, in the case of biofuels, these shouldn’t compete for land with vital food crops…
We’ve already made a good start – since 2011, more than 2,200 commercial flights have used alternative fuels– but this has to be put in a context of more than 100,000 flights being made worldwide each day.
While the current agreement is voluntary, ICAO has managed to create one of the first global agreements to apply to a specific sector on carbon emissions. Industry and academia now need to deliver the advancements – supported, needless to say, by national governments…
http://theconversation.com/flight-to-greener-aviation-fuel-has-hit-turbulence-heres-why-72749
20
28 Feb: AFR: Ben Potter: Victoria doubles feed-in tariff, slugs poor, to drive solar
In a move expected to boost the take-up of solar panels and batteries in Victoria, a pricing regulator has more than doubled the feed-in tariff that retailers must pay 210,000 solar households for feeding power back to the grid.
The decision was slammed by St Vincent de Paul policy manager Gavin Dufty, who said it would cost poor renters and other households that couldn’t afford to install solar panels on their roofs about $20 a year initially, and more over time.
Reversing a nationwide trend reversing towards stingier feed-in tariffs, the Essential Services Commission is raising the minimum feed-in tariff from 5¢ per kilowatt hour to 11.3¢ from July 1 to recognise solar’s “social value” and higher wholesale electricity prices.
“It’s a substantial change and higher than the market is currently offering in Victoria and, with a few exceptions, anywhere elsewhere in the national electricity market,” said Bruce Mountain, director of CME…
Nearly 90,000 Victorian households are still on a 60¢ tariff until 2024 and 378,000 Queensland and South Australian households are on a 44¢ tariff until 2028…
It was welcomed by solar advocates, who predicted a wave of new community solar projects, and slammed by the energy industry, which said solar is already heavily subsidised by the federal Renewable Energy Target scheme and the extra cost would have to be paid for by other customers…
Critics said it would make life harder for retailers that already offer higher feed-in tariffs when supply is short, and technology firms trialling schemes to make this automatic, frustrating a trend towards using demand management to curb demand peaks and avert blackouts.
Tony Wood, energy program director for the Grattan Institute, said it was a move in the wrong direction…READ ON
http://www.afr.com/news/victoria-doubles-feedin-tariff-slugs-poor-to-drive-solar-20170228-gun1x0
31
as this is not available in single page, i’m linking to the print page, so hope that makes it easier to read it all in one piece;
6 pages: 27 Feb: Forbes: Managing Wind And Solar Intermittency In Current And Future Systems
by Earl J. Ritchie, Lecturer, Department of Construction Management, Uni of Houston Energy Fellows
The graph below illustrates variation in Irish wind power over one year. The Irish example is pertinent because at 23% of electricity generated, they have one of the highest shares of wind power, and the wind farms are dispersed over the country. Despite the benefit of the geographic spread, there are moderately long periods during which little or no electricity was generated by wind. The historical average amount generated is 31% of installed capacity according to EirGrid and SONI, but the range is from near zero to about 50%…
The WWF scenario decreases overall energy demand by about 25% from a peak in 2020. It is at odds with many other scenarios that envision continued growth in energy demand due to increasing population and increases in consumption in the developing and less developed countries.
Similarly, this scenario envisions a decrease in annual energy cost of 4 trillion Euros by 2050, based on reduced demand and lower fuel costs. These numbers are at odds with the predicted increase in generation cost associated with high shares of VRE discussed in an earlier post (LINK).
It’s not clear to me whether scenarios that envision drastic shifts in energy source are considered plausible or are ***thought experiments expressing ideal goals. The WWF report describes the task of transforming the system as “a huge one, raising major challenges.” Considering the modest progress to date, differing views of the priority of decarbonization, the need for as yet unproven technology and the time needed to construct new systems, it seems unlikely that this transformation will be completed by 2050.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2017/02/27/managing-wind-and-solar-intermittency-in-current-and-future-systems/print/
About the writer: Earl J. Ritchie is a retired energy executive and teaches a course on the oil and gas industry at the University of Houston. He has 35 years’ experience in the industry. He started as a geophysicist with Mobil Oil and subsequently worked in a variety of management and technical positions with several independent exploration and production companies. Ritchie retired as Vice President and General Manager of the offshore division of EOG Resources in 2007. Prior to his experience in the oil industry, he served at the US Air Force Special Weapons Center, providing geologic and geophysical support to nuclear research activities.
UH Energy is the University of Houston’s hub for energy education, research and technology incubation, working to shape the energy future and forge new business approaches in the energy industry.
31
27 Feb: ExpressTribunePakistan: Reuters: ‘Thar coal mine set to become Pakistan’s biggest industrial site’
THARPARKAR DISTRICT: A line of trucks weaves in and out of the open coal pit that has been dug in the Thar desert in Sindh. Below the massive hole lies one of the world’s largest coal reserves, untapped until now.
For years Pakistan used its Thar coal reserves as a bargaining chip in global climate negotiations. Since it was not mining the coal, it argued, it should receive easier access to international climate finance and to clean technology to help it grow in a cleaner and more sustainable way.
But as part of its attempt to end the country’s energy crisis which has caused frequent power cuts for years, the government is encouraging mining companies to the area.
Traditionally Pakistan has had relatively low emissions of climate changing gases. But under the global Paris Agreement to address climate change, the country has admitted it is likely to see a four-fold increase in emissions by 2030…
But “Pakistan needs electricity — its GDP is currently affected by the lack of power”, he said. The estimated 175 billion tonnes of watery, low energy coal was first discovered in 1992 but because of its poor quality, most companies found it too costly to mine.
In 2012, SECMC, took up the challenge, convincing eight companies to join them, two of them Chinese. They are also now building a 660 megawatt coal power plant nearby — which the company wants to increase to 3,300MW by 2022 — and the Sindh government has improved roads and built an airport in the desert for the project…
For the past three months villagers near the mine have been protesting SECMC’s mining plans, saying the project will pollute their water and threaten their ancestral lands…READ ON
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1340692/thar-coal-mine-set-become-pakistans-biggest-industrial-site/
27 Feb: Guardian: Locals accuse Pakistan of doing the dirty by turning to coal to meet energy needs
As Pakistan seeks to address its power crisis by mining coal, villagers in the Thar desert are fighting to prevent state acquisition of their ancestral land
by Zofeen Ebrahim in Karachi
The Sindh government is backing the project, under which the villagers were coerced into selling their land in the “greater national interest”. Official estimates suggest there are 175bn tonnes of lignite coal reserves beneath the 9,000 sq km stretch of land – enough to last “400 years”, according to planning and development minister Ahsan Iqbal – and the villagers were promised that the sale would bring personal as well as national prosperity…
Serious power shortages have crippled industry – in summer, Pakistan faces a shortfall of more than 6,000 MW – and many see coal as the only resource that can save the country from total darkness. Last month, during the signing of an agreement with China for a power generation project, the electricity went off twice, plunging the conference hall into darkness for few minutes. The agreement papers were reviewed using mobile phone torches…
Many are alarmed by Pakistan’s insistence on turning to coal, however…READ ALL
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/27/pakistan-coal-energy-needs-thar-desert
21
el gordo – comment #23 – mentioned this topic:
28 Feb: ABC America: AP: EU court rejects bid to nix tariffs on Chinese solar panels
A European Union court has dismissed a bid by 26 companies to annul anti-dumping tariffs imposed by the bloc on Chinese solar panels more than three years ago.
The 28-nation EU raised import duties on Chinese solar panels and key components at the end of 2013 after concluding that Beijing improperly subsidized manufacturers and that the panels were being sold well below their normal market value.
The EU’s Luxembourg-based General Court on Tuesday upheld all the duties, finding that it was also proper to apply them when parts of panels originated in other countries but were exported as part of a product from China.
Chinese authorities have argued that Europe is hurting efforts to fight climate change by charging higher import duties on Chinese photovoltaic technology.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/eu-court-rejects-bid-nix-tariffs-chinese-solar-45798031
21
There was a paper (2016 I think) disussed at notrickszone.com that calculated the energy input into producing and maintaining a fairly old windfarm (on land in Germany) throughout its life and found this greater than the total energy that the farm had produced. I think it included the increased cost and maintenance of the backup power source and its energy production. I.e. it costed the whole system. It certainly included the initial infrastructure (cost and transport of concrete for the access roads for example)as well as the additional energy cost of backup power and its maintenance.
I suspect the balance would be worse for offshore (cost of hiring floating cranes is huge!). Perhaps newer farms have a more favourable energy balance, however the early farms took the most favourable sites so later sites might generate less. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know the average excess energy (over the energy costs of production, maintenance and distribution) that a windmill generates.
50
”
Rex Murphy;
The McGuinty-Wynne “world leadership on the climate change (global warming)” file is an exercise mat for flexibility training. How else could the Ontario government have mastered its current somersaults on what it hilariously refers to as its energy policy; sending rebates to citizens unable to pay to light and heat their homes, precisely because that same government went full green and put energy costs in a place where people cannot pay to light and heat their homes. The Ontario Green Dream is the world’s first genuine (taxpayer) perpetual motion machine.”
South Australia also wants one.
And check the Rex Murphy quote in comments
“CAS replied to comment from Ward | February 28, 2017 11:29 AM | Reply”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/02/we-dont-need-no-613.html#comment-1092032
30
I have made a submission to the review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market on the economics of wind farms.
– The Ararat Wind Farm in Victoria was recently completed with 75 turbines providing a nameplate capacity of 240 MW at a capital cost of $450 million
– To provide an 8% return on that investment after costs and asset depreciation requires an income of $91/MWh of electricity sold into the National Electricity Market administered by the market operator AEMO.
– However the wholesale electricity price in Victoria averaged only $46/MWh in 2016, up from $28/MWh in 2005
– The Ararat Wind Farm also gets income by selling Renewable Energy Certificates under the government’s Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 with subsequent revisions. Those RECs have been selling at an average $87/MWh.
– The Ararat Wind Farm can get a return on investment of about 14% per annum at the expense of electricity consumers (and essentially guaranteed by government) by receiving $133/MWh compared to the market price of $46/MWh
– It is wrong to report that wind-generated electricity is cheaper than traditional coal/gas supplied electricity. In fact if Australia moved towards 50% supply from wind farms, average electricity prices would need to be about $91/Mwh, essentially double the 2016 Victorian price of $46/MWh.
Conclusion: Before the RET was introduced, Australia had reliable and affordable electricity at a wholesale price generally under $30/MWh. The RET has driven electricity prices in 2016 up to $46/MWh in Victoria and $61 in South Australia (Source: AEMO) and prices will continue to rise significantly to meet the 2020 23.5% target.
Governments must change their priorities to focus on the immediate problems of reliability and affordability. Stop the mad rush towards a 23.5% RET by 2020 that mandate wind/solar supplies increasing from 7% to 18% (that’s on average, so supply varying from 0 to 50% of demand depending on sun and wind). Therefore all of the coal and gas stations must be available, else we will have more and more instances of “load shedding (i.e. blackouts).”
Governments must take action NOW.
60
Wind and solar are, in principle, unsustainable. They were well described years ago by Petr Beckman as “piddle power” because of their lack of sustainable pressure – the difference between the force of water from a household hose and that from a fire hose. There is an absolute limit on solar energy that is dependant upon latitude as well as time of day and weather.
All rather ridiculous really.
Maybe we need someone to not only announce that the King has no clothes but decide that he is insane and best moved to a place where his ranting can be enjoyed by his admiring flock.
And now the Donald is moving
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/28/memorandum-heads-departments-and-agencies
Maybe some brave person will start to move here. But don’t wait up
30
Whoops wrong reference
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/28/remarks-president-trump-signing-waters-united-states-wotus-executive
40
Thanks for that M,
I think President Trump put his position very well. And has acted promptly as promised. And I’ve not seen any mention in MSM so far. Not even any screams from the Greens.
Cheers,
Dave B
10
I was reading somewhere yesterday that obe very large internet search engine us starting to boycott ” unorthodox” web sites, or something like that to “disappear” sites from the internet.
IMHO it would seem like a form of declaration of “war” on those who dare question.
Interesting times….
40
28 Feb: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: EPA Union Bosses Call Trump’s Budget Cuts ‘A Declaration Of War’
“This is a declaration of war, a war on the environment,” John O’Grady, an EPA union leader and agency employee, told E&E news. “It’s a declaration of war against children with asthma, against women of child-bearing age, against the elderly.”…
“People are nervous here, and this certainly doesn’t cause people to be less nervous,” said Joe Edgell, who’s also an EPA union leader…
“Many of the federal agencies that would be targeted by these budget cuts already have been cut to the bone this decade as a result of harmful austerity policies,” J. David Cox Sr., AFGE’s national president, said in a statement…
Cuts are likely to come from EPA’s $4.6 billion budget for federal programs, payroll and contracts. The Trump administration could cut EPA global warming programs, grants to environmentalists and some research funding…
The group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is preparing to give legal assistance to EPA employees who get laid off under Trump.
“This is only the first year. So what’s in store after that?” O’Grady lamented…
http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2017/02/28/epa-union-bosses-call-trumps-budget-cuts-a-declaration-of-war/
21
28 Feb: NPR Morning Edition: With Climate Change, California Is Likely To See More Extreme Flooding
by Lauren Sommer
But this shouldn’t be a surprise, says Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate scientist at Stanford University.
“It’s actually exactly what has been predicted by scientists for at least 30 years,” he says.
He says California is likely to see more extreme flooding with climate change. And the reason is pretty simple. If it’s warmer, storms produce more rain instead of snow…
“Our water system was really built in an old climate,” he says. “It’s a climate that is no longer the climate of California.”
So what can California do about this?
Some are calling for more dams to be built. But Jay Lund, who directs the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California-Davis, says even if the dams are big enough to handle flood events, the channels downstream may not be able to…
But if the state is going to catch up to the climate it has now, there’s still a long way to go.
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/28/517495739/with-climate-change-california-is-likely-to-see-more-extreme-flooding
California Drought Is Made Worse by Global Warming, Scientists Say …
New York Times – Aug 20, 2015
California Drought Is Worsened by Global Warming, Scientists Say …
New York Times – Apr 1, 2015
How climate change is making California’s epic drought worse
Phys.org – May 21, 2015
21
pat: we must send them Tim Flannery A.S.A.P. so the rain won’t fall there anymore.
50
Germans have developed something new from the Energiewende (energy transition): The word
Literally; dark calm. It describes the periods where there is not much sunshine and naff-all wind such as much of the current winter, so they end up sitting in the dark, trying to work out why they can no longer to afford to pay their energy bills. 90+GW of installed solar+wind “capacity” and barely 2GW to show for it.
They ought to have ™’d it because South Australia will have use for the word in the coming winter, following the shutdown of Hazelwood that contributes to maintaining the electrical umbilical.
50
being picked up by CAGW-infested MSM at a fast rate. they turn against CAGW darling Shell, & leave it until near the end to mention Wigley/UEA connection.
full video link below Guardian link:
28 Feb: Guardian: ‘Shell knew’: oil giant’s 1991 film warned of climate change danger
Public information film unseen for years shows Shell had clear grasp of global warming 26 years ago but has not acted accordingly since, say critics
Film warned of climate change ‘at rate faster than at any time since end of the ice age’
by Damian Carrington and Jelmer Mommers
Shell’s 28-minute film, called Climate of Concern, was made for public viewing, particularly in schools and universities. It warned of extreme weather, floods, famines and climate refugees as fossil fuel burning warmed the world. The serious warning was “endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their report to the United Nations at the end of 1990”, the film noted…
A separate 1986 report, marked “confidential” and also seen by the Guardian, notes the large uncertainties in climate science at the time but nonetheless states: “The changes may be the greatest in recorded history.”…
The film was obtained by the Correspondent, a Dutch online journalism platform, and shared with the Guardian, and lauds commercial-scale solar and wind power that already existed in 1991. Shell has recently lobbied successfully to undermine European renewable energy targets and is estimated to have spent $22m in 2015 lobbying against climate policies. The company’s investments in low-carbon energy have been minimal compared to its fossil fuel investments…
(quotes Tom Burke at the green thinktank E3G, Bill McKibben)
***Prof Tom Wigley, the climate scientist who was head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia when it helped Shell with the 1991 film, said: “It’s one of the best little films that I have seen on climate change ever. One could show this today and almost all would still be relevant.” He said Shell’s actions since 1991 had “absolutely not” been consistent with the film’s warning.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger
Youtube: 28mins31secs: Climate of Concern by Shell (1991)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYBCVJipdaA
doesn’t sound like it was hidden!
2014: Shell: Shell’s pioneering films
The company’s long cooperation with the UN continued with 1984’s “Escape from Hunger” and 1992’s “Nutrition: The Global Challenge”.
The award-winning 1991 film “Climate of Concern” is one of the earliest warnings about the threat of global warming and how the world might deal with it…
http://www.shell.com/inside-energy/shells-pioneering-films.html
01
aha…whatever…
27 Feb: New Scientist: Snow will melt more slowly in a warmer world – here’s why
by Brian Owens
Warmer global temperatures will lead to less snow in many mountainous areas, says Keith Musselman, a hydrologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
That thinner layer of snow will be less likely to last into the late spring and early summer, when melting rates are highest.
Instead, it will melt slowly throughout the winter and early spring, when night-time temperatures are lower and there is less direct sunlight, releasing just a trickle of water instead of a sudden gush. In short, a warming planet will cause the snow to melt sooner but more slowly.
“The more you think about it, it becomes one of those ‘aha!’ stories,” says Musselman, who used historical snowpack measurements and computer simulations to predict how the melting rate will change by the end of the century…
Journal reference: Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3225
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2122647-snow-will-melt-more-slowly-in-a-warmer-world-heres-why/
01
creator of the Dilbert comic strip, Scott Adams:
28 Feb: Dilbert: Scott Adams blog: Tucker Carlson Induces Cognitive Dissonance in Bill Nye the Science Guy over Climate Change
Look for Nye to go totally mental in the last minute of the clip, changing the topic to political leaks for no apparent reason. That’s your tell. His brain just sort of broke right in front of you.
People do and say dumb things all the time, and it isn’t always cognitive dissonance. That’s why you look for the trigger to make sure the “tell” was what you thought it was.
To be fair, spotting cognitive dissonance is more like bird-watching than science. Sometimes you misidentify a bird. But this example is like an ostrich sitting on your lap. Hard to miss. Enjoy.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157823678756/tucker-carlson-induces-cognitive-dissonance-in
28 Feb: Dilbert: Scott Adams blog: Nothing to See Here, Folks
I recently tweeted a link to my blog post that is unflattering to the proponents of climate science. I have 138,000 Twitter followers. My traffic from Twitter to my blog in a recent minute was only 14 people, while overall traffic from other sources was its usual robust self. For non-controversial topics, my Twitter-driven traffic for a tweet to my blog would be 200-300 per minute in the half-hour after a tweet. On this topic, it hovered between 10-14.
As many others have documented, Twitter throttles back the tweets of people who hold political views they don’t like…
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157826468646/nothing-to-see-here-folks
Wikipedia: In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, (Scott) Adams drew attention for his early prediction that Donald Trump would defeat all Republican primary challengers and win the general election in a “landslide”.
u can find some other CAGW pieces of his from the Dilbert website on by searching online for Scott Adams + The Climate Science Challenge or Scott Adams + The Climate Science Debate Illusion, the latter dated 25 Feb.
21
27 Feb: Phys.org: Humans sparked 84 percent of US wildfires, increased fire season over two decades
Humans have dramatically increased the spatial and seasonal extent of wildfires across the U.S. in recent decades and ignited more than 840,000 blazes in the spring, fall and winter seasons over a 21-year period, according to new research…
The findings were published ***today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences…
“These findings do not discount the ongoing role of climate change, but instead suggest we should be most concerned about where it overlaps with human impact,” said (Director of CU Boulder’s Earth Lab and an assistant professor in the Department of Geography and lead author Jennifer) Balch. “Climate change is making our fields, forests and grasslands drier and hotter for longer periods, creating a greater window of opportunity for human-related ignitions to start wildfires.”…
“We saw significant increases in the numbers of large, human-started fires over time, especially in the spring,” said Bethany Bradley, an associate professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst and co-lead author of the research. “I think that’s interesting, and scary, because it suggests that as spring seasons get warmer and earlier due to climate change, human ignitions are putting us at increasing risk of some of the largest, most damaging wildfires.”…
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html
PNAS: Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States
Abstract
Edited by Gregory P. Asner, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA, and ***approved January 6, 2017 (received for review October 20, 2016)
The economic and ecological costs of wildfire in the United States have risen substantially in recent decades. Although climate change has likely enabled a portion of the increase in wildfire activity, the direct role of people in increasing wildfire activity has been largely overlooked. We evaluate over 1.5 million government records of wildfires that had to be extinguished or managed by state or federal agencies from 1992 to 2012, and examined geographic and seasonal extents of human-ignited wildfires relative to lightning-ignited wildfires. Humans have vastly expanded the spatial and seasonal “fire niche” in the coterminous United States, accounting for 84% of all wildfires and 44% of total area burned. During the 21-y time period, the human-caused fire season was three times longer than the lightning-caused fire season and added an average of 40,000 wildfires per year across the United States…
RIGHT COLUMN: ***Published online before print February 27, 2017, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1617394114
PNAS February 27, 2017
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/02/21/1617394114.abstract
01
followup to comment #22 above – Facebook study nonsense.
turns out study was done in 2014 and dragged out now – to support the so-called “march for science”?
ExtremelyFakeNewsWaPo adds to ***”volume of media coverage” tilting towards the march.
27 Feb: WaPo: Chris Mooney: Scientists have long been afraid of engaging in ‘advocacy.’ A new study says it may not hurt them
We’re in a very strange place for the science world right now.
(LOL) There was a time in recent memory when scientists were very afraid of something called “advocacy.” While the term was variously interpreted, the general fear was easy to characterize: taking a stand perceived as political would undermine the credibility and objectivity of the research community in the eyes of the public. Accordingly, scientists tended to support the stance that they should simply lay their knowledge out there (often in very technical language) and let politicians decide what to do with it — drawing a firm line between “science” and “policy.”
Now, however, a large number of scientists and their supporters are poised to demonstrate on April 22, in an event that not only can be characterized as advocacy but that, despite its official nonpartisan stance, will surely be interpreted by some as a form of anti-Trump advocacy.
The political and social consequences of a massive March for Science like the one that may be coming are impossible to predict — much depends on the ***volume of media coverage and also its tilt…
The study’s respondents were presented with six experimentally varied examples of a supposed Facebook post by a climate scientist named “Dr. Dave Wilson”…
At the most modest position, Wilson merely notes that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of 400 parts per million represents “the first time in recorded history that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have been this high.” If that’s advocacy, then any providing of context alongside scientific information probably would be…
But in other variants, the faux researcher goes further, arguing that “we should make a strong effort now to avert the worst impacts of climate change” or even that “the best solution would be to set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants” or to “build more nuclear plants.”…
The latter form of advocacy, in particular, has long worried researchers. (A still more dramatic form of advocacy — taking a partisan political stand — was not included in the study.)
So what did the research subjects think of this? The results were pretty surprising: When respondents were asked about the researcher’s credibility after reading the Facebook posts, none of the stances seemed to produce a significantly lower credibility rating for the scientist, except for the stance advocating nuclear power…
However, the study also found that political conservatives rated Wilson as having less credibility than liberals did. But this didn’t vary depending on the stance he was taking — conservatives were just more dismissive period…
This comports with research suggesting those on the right have a lower trust in scientists, particularly on environmental issues…
So what are the implications of this for the coming March for Science, which describes itself as “a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence-based policies in the public interest” and that is just as clearly drawing energy from people’s concern about the Trump administration?
That’s not entirely straightforward — the research was actually conducted back in 2014, before anyone was proposing a demonstration or knew Trump would be elected. Still, Kotcher says, there are some interesting things to be weighed…
So since the march is indeed going to happen and seems unstoppable — major scientific organizations are now embracing it…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/27/scientists-have-long-been-afraid-of-advocacy-a-new-study-says-it-may-not-hurt-them/?utm_term=.1479a095e839
01
As at noon on Wednesday, wind farms in Australia are producing about 340 MW, mostly in SA, down from over 1000 MW overnight, total nameplate capacity 3890 MW. Hydro is producing about 1700 MW, max capacity 4690 MW. Solar is producing about 200 MW. So all up, “renewables” are contributing 2240 MW to meeting current total demand 26,000 MW. So renewables are contributing less than 10% of supply, wind and solar only 2%. Yet somehow, by 2020, given that there will be no increase in hydro, wind/solar must increase to provide over 18% of total demand on average to meet the 23.5% RET as mandated in legislation, but with back up reserves available to keep the lights on.
Meanwhile in SA, total demand 2075 MW, only 340 MW from wind, I wonder what they are doing to keep the lights on? Current spot price $325/MWh in SA compared to $120/MWh in Victoria. Is SA dependent once again on those evil coal stations in Victoria? They must be working hard to manage demand that is forecast to peak this evening at 2700 MW to avoid another blackout.
Will someone tell our politicians they are dreaming? They seem to be good at blowing in the wind 🙂
40
Not related but it had to be posted somewhere.
From NASA about Mars, remember Mars has 97% CO2 atmosphere at 100th Earth pressure.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasas-curiosity-rover-sharpens-paradox-of-ancient-mars
“Mars scientists are wrestling with a problem. Ample evidence says ancient Mars was sometimes wet, with water flowing and pooling on the planet’s surface. Yet, the ancient sun was about one-third less warm and climate modelers struggle to produce scenarios that get the surface of Mars warm enough for keeping water unfrozen.
A leading theory is to have a thicker carbon-dioxide atmosphere forming a greenhouse-gas blanket, helping to warm the surface of ancient Mars. However, according to a new analysis of data from NASA’s Mars rover Curiosity, Mars had far too little carbon dioxide about 3.5 billion years ago to provide enough greenhouse-effect warming to thaw water ice.”
They cant get over (or wont admit anywhere even on this Mars article due to politics) that theres no GHG effect! The models (CO2 based) are wrong again, even for ancient Mars! Of course they struggle they are plain wrong as is for Earth.
NASA use another model or think outside the square for once!
52
NASA already knows that our star warms Mars and Earth at the same time and rate.
‘In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.’
National Geographic
02
Jo, can we kill this nonsense off in a new topic?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-01/as-food-demand-rises-climate-change-is-hitting-our-staple-crops/8314188
More CO2, greater yields, more rain…whats not to like? Have they twisted things here?
“While increases in population and wealth will lift global demand for food by up to 70 per cent by 2050, agriculture is already feeling the effects of climate change.
This is expected to continue in coming decades.
Scientists and farmers will need to act on multiple fronts to counter falling crop yields and feed more people.
As with previous agricultural revolutions, we need a new set of plant characteristics to meet the challenge.
When it comes to the staple crops — wheat, rice, maize, soybean, barley and sorghum — research has found changes in rainfall and temperature explain about 30 per cent of the yearly variation in agricultural yields.
All six crops responded negatively to increasing temperatures — most likely associated with increases in crop development rates and water stress.
In particular, wheat, maize and barley show a negative response to increased temperatures. But, overall, rainfall trends had only minor effects on crop yields in these studies.
Since 1950, average global temperatures have risen by roughly 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade.
An even faster rate of roughly 0.2C of warming per decade is expected over the next few decades.
As temperatures rise, rainfall patterns change. Increased heat also leads to greater evaporation and surface drying, which further intensifies and prolongs droughts.
A warmer atmosphere can also hold more water — about 7 per cent more water vapour for every 1C increase in temperature.
This ultimately results in storms with more intense rainfall. A review of rainfall patterns shows changes in the amount of rainfall everywhere.”
11
‘An even faster rate of roughly 0.2C of warming per decade is expected over the next few decades.’
Its a lie.
02
I read the synopsis of the so-called rebuttal that gave a ERoEI return of 7 (which is ridiculously high) to do that they discounted the need for storage IE they implied that Coal Power and Solar Power is equal reliability and they counted rooftop solar like Grid Scale solar they also (falsely) claimed that Solar was used for peaking and that batteries would be needed for nuclear peaking.
Neither study considers the opportunity cost of the different land areas occupied by solar vs coal or Nuke power.
00
REPLIES TO COMMENT 4
In particular two great comments by ” Tony from OZ” I don’t disagree with any of his comments on this as well as batteries and the grid in general. What is not appreciated by almost all commentators is just how severe the forces of nature are on renewables and we haven’t really seen it yet as we have had very little severe weather for around 30 years or more. I speak from 52 years in aviation and as a former Domestic Airline Captain and having been confronted with lines of storms over 400 miles long and tops to 70,000’quite often in summer in the 1970’s. The simple facts are, the severe cells in storms of this magnitude can breakup aircraft and solar panels and wind turbines and they will come again as everything does in the weather cycles. To have any degree of solar or wind as a provider of power to main grids is madness as this will happen – just a matter of time.
10
Even if we have installed this much PV panels, the contribution to primary energy demand is only 1%, as can be see by the charts of German Ministry od Economics.
Wind power accounts for 2.4 %.
But CO2 output did not decline for 8 Years now, because we are shutting off our nuclear plants.
In 2022 we will not have any nuclear electicity power generation. >>> higher costs, more CO2.
See also:
20