Australian PM Cancels Subsidies for New Windfarm Projects


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Breitbart – Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whose recently appointed a commissioner to handle complaints about wind farms, has just instructed the government Clean Energy Corporation not to subsidise any new wind farm projects.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald;

Tony Abbott has dramatically escalated his war on wind power, creating a new cabinet split and provoking a warning he is putting international investment at risk.

Fairfax Media can reveal the government has ordered the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation not to make any new investments in wind power projects.

Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann​ have issued the so-called green bank with a directive to change its investment mandate, prohibiting new wind funding. It’s understood the directive was issued without the approval or knowledge of Environment Minister Greg Hunt, angering the minister.

The decision is another blow for the multibillion-dollar wind industry, which has just started to recover from the uncertainty created by the government’s Renewable Energy Target review. Analysts say $8.7 billion is expected to be invested in wind power in the next five years, while the corporation has invested about $300 million in wind projects to date.

Read more:

The Australian Abbott government has twice been unable to muster the numbers in the senate, to pass legislation to abolish the commission. But they’ve done the next best thing – they’ve demanded the commission focus on developing new technology.

… The government has previously said it wants the corporation to focus on investing in innovative clean energy proposals and technologies rather than mature technologies that can be financed by mainstream lenders.

Senator Cormann and Mr Hockey amended the mandate for the first time earlier this year, directing the corporation to lift its targeted returns without lifting its risk profile.

The government has twice tried to abolish the corporation but has been blocked by the Senate. The bill to abolish the corporation is a potential double dissolution election trigger. …

Read more:

Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey shares Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s concerns about wind turbines – in 2014 he described wind turbines as “utterly offensive”.

The wind industry has regularly claimed for years that their technology is close to cost parity with coal. So I expect the withdrawal of government subsidies for wind turbines will have no impact on future wind projects.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 12, 2015 2:09 pm

I would not take the ‘green subsidies’ out. The fossil fuel industry enjoys them. I would just put them in the same playing field; having to meet the same performance conditions

Martin Mason
Reply to  Francisco
July 12, 2015 2:33 pm

It is incorrect that the oil industry receives any direct subsidy of the type received for renewable energy. The oil industry is one of the most overtaxed on the planet

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Martin Mason
July 12, 2015 2:41 pm

Francisco repeats green lies.

Reply to  Martin Mason
July 12, 2015 2:50 pm

Actually, the O&G industry receives preferential tax treatment and loans. However, they are subject to strict regulations, performance measures for development, job creation, efficiency and overall accountability for every cent loaned. No monies are released to any fossil fuel project unless the business case has been verified.
The green industry receives grants and investment funds as direct subsidy, as you correctly pointed out, for which they are not accountable should they go into bankruptcy or the project failure is due to (put any of the myriad of factor.. excuses here).
It is widely known that the fossil fuel is subsidized. It is widely misconstrued that the ‘green energy’ should also have the right to be subsidized.
Both can and should be subsidized as long as the metrics for loans or tax breaks are the same and no ‘hand outs’ or bail outs are given.
So, Robert of Ottawa, please do tell me which green lie I am repeating. I’d like to water and give it some CO2 to flourish

Reply to  Martin Mason
July 12, 2015 4:15 pm

youre engaging in equivocation the tax treatment the oil and gas industries experience is not at all similar to the outright subsidies that the renewables rentiers enjoy.
it is simply dishonest and disingenuous for you to make this argument.

Reply to  Martin Mason
July 12, 2015 4:25 pm

davideisenstadt ….

You are correct. The oil and gas industries receive far more in “fringe” benefits from the taxpayers. For example, the wind industry does not need to have a aircraft carrier task force assigned to protect the wind corridor unlike the Persian Gulf that has one protecting oil interests.

Reply to  Martin Mason
July 12, 2015 5:09 pm

Francisco July 12, 2015 at 2:50 pm
Both can and should be subsidized as long as the metrics for loans or tax breaks are the same and no ‘hand outs’ or bail outs are given.

Why should they be subsidized?

Reply to  Martin Mason
July 12, 2015 9:00 pm

Tell you what Francisco; eliminate all actual subsidies for all industries. Then have all green industries pay equal taxes as the oil and gas, at all governmental levels; national, territory, state or province, local.
Whaddya say?

Reply to  Martin Mason
July 13, 2015 6:43 am

Q: Why should be subsidized? clarification, ’cause I think some of you guys read a bit too fast: tax benefits and preferential loans; NOT hand-outs.
a: promotes job creation and development when some of our taxes are put towards it
I can’t believe that readers tried to slam me using the same argument I was using.
I am sorry to say, it is hilarious. You are acting just as a warmongers.
Unless my ESL got in the way big time, I thought I had been pretty clear. If my ESL was correct, grammar and spelling, you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Acting as warmongers do: fling crap without stopping to read the premise.
Now, if my ESL got in the way there is nothing more I could do. I re-read my post couple times and still think it is correct

Reply to  Francisco
July 13, 2015 7:09 am

No. Your ESL (English as Second Language) words are adequate to understand your thoughts and your comments.
The problem is, your thoughts and your conclusions and your comments are simply dead wrong.

Reply to  Martin Mason
July 13, 2015 7:13 am

If I am ‘dead wrong’, perhaps you could enlighten me on how?

Bryan A
Reply to  Martin Mason
July 13, 2015 12:39 pm

About the only places where Oil is truly subsidized is Arab Nations where their populace is charged less and Venezuela where Gas is pennies per gallon

William R
Reply to  Francisco
July 12, 2015 2:39 pm

I’d be happy if they were on a level playing field from a tax/subsidy standpoint, as long as they meet the same performance conditions, as you say. That level playing field means that output can be ramped up/down to meet demand (no brownouts or wasted energy). Let me know when wind or solar can do that and remain cost neutral to coal/nat gas.

Reply to  William R
July 13, 2015 8:28 am

You’re missing a major point. The extraction industry operates completely different from power generation companies. When the pump runs dry or the vein peters out the entire investment is worthless. A power company has saleable product as long as the wind blows, the water flows, or the sun shines. A rational government (is that asking too much?) will adjust tax policy to reflect this difference. A different tax policy for the fossil fuel industry is in no way comparable to a direct “subsidy”, though each can be misused as a form of crony fascism.

Reply to  Francisco
July 12, 2015 2:43 pm

The only “subsidy” received by oil companies is that their tax rate is less that 100%.

Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2015 7:24 pm

imagine wind turbines paying 25% royalties on net revenues. instead they are paid a guaranteed price, regardless of the market.

Cecil S. Teddy
Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2015 7:38 pm

Do you understand why royalties are paid? It’s a return to the owner of a resource that is owned by someone else. Wind farms don’t pay royalties because the wind isn’t used up. Maybe I should back up one. Do you understand what renewable is? LOL

Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2015 9:11 pm

There are a few national oil companies (think Venezuela) with complex home market pricing strategies that involve subsidies. Most other “subsidies” are tax relief of some sort, not a subsidy in the normal sense of the word, and certainly unlike “renewables” subsidies.

William R
Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2015 9:45 pm

Cecil, I would say wind farms do owe royalties to their neighbors, who deal with real losses or nuisances from blight, sound pollution, disrupted wind patterns downwind, and dead birds. As far as “subsidies” for oil companies, if you check the tax paid by Exxon and other vertically integrated oil companies, you will see they pay among the highest (if not the highest) tax rates of any industry. Compare that with your wind buddies, or your green heroes at Apple, who pay next to nothing.
Whatever subsidies oil companies receive obviously don’t amount to much. The only one I can think of is a tax deduction on expenses for failed exploration, which is akin to the tax deduction we all get on capital losses (investment losses). I fail to see why oil companies shouldn’t be allowed to deduct losses just like any other company or individual. Oh yeah, because they are evil for providing reliable and inexpensive energy that has allowed economic growth and prosperity for billions and saving lives in the process, while greens/socialists feel smug and self righteous while their initiatives kill people by the millions.

Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2015 10:22 pm

Cecil Teddy
The question of “royalties” points to the feudalistic and patronising property laws of countries where land ownership fails to include resources under the land “owned”. This is why fracking doesnt happen in Europe – oil underground still belongs to the baron in his castle (the govt) not the feudal tenant outside the castle walls. The USA is, AFAIK. The only major country which considers land ownership to mean owning land. (I’m not American BTW.)

Cecil S. Teddy
Reply to  MarkW
July 13, 2015 1:51 am

Yep William R. It’s capitalism that is concerned with the unhuddled masses and we green ideologues that want to keep them poor and kill them. ps: not sure which green initiatives have killed millions of people. pps: Not a fan of Apple technology or tax planning.

Reply to  Cecil S. Teddy
July 13, 2015 11:25 am

Cecil S. Teddy commented: “… not sure which green initiatives have killed millions of people.”
The DDT ban is the most egregious. AGW is DDT revisited. After Americans and Europeans rid themselves of malaria they had it banned world wide “to protect our children”. Consequently the most economical, effective, and easiest to use (sound familiar?) method of controlling mosquito ceased to be manufactured (except in Eritrea). The WHO estimates that mosquito born diseases account for a million deaths per year since the ban in 1972. Do the math. Since then research has removed the stigma from DDT but it remains banned. The WHO only recently suggested its’ reintroduction as the perceived threat is non existent. Also, the countries/peoples most affected by mosquito are the most impoverished (sound familiar again?). And there are more green “solutions” where the fix is worse than a manufactured problem.

Reply to  Francisco
July 12, 2015 2:46 pm

Good idea. Let’s make the first criterion the provision and maintenance of 24/7 energy generation.

Reply to  Kevin Lohse
July 12, 2015 4:50 pm

First, Eric, thank you for all your contributions. Please keep that up!
Congratulations to PM Abbott! You will be vindicated sooner than a lot of people think.
If the wind generating business is as viable as they claim, there is no need for subsidy. And, if the increasing number of predictions of an oncoming cooler climate prove to be valid, we don’t need excessively expensive, inefficient, unreliable solar and wind ‘farms’. We should be investing in far less expensive ‘greenhouse farms’. In the event of a cool (or even cold) shift in the climate they could be very useful. If the climate should remain stable, they would still be used to extend the growing season. Warming could be provided by fossil fuel and the plants would LOVE it.
It’s becoming more and more apparent from studies that CO2 only provides a fraction of the temperature forcing that the warmists claim and one day some prominent AGW adherents will be forced to admit that.

Reply to  Francisco
July 12, 2015 4:31 pm

That’s not going to happen in the U.S. with subsidies like these to Warren Buffet:
“1 kilowatt of windmill electricity produces 57x the profit of 1 kilowatt of hydrocarbon fuel electricity.”
“When our current projects are completed, MidAmerican’s renewables portfolio will have cost $15 billion. We relish making such commitments as long as they promise reasonable returns. And on that front, we put a large amount of trust in future regulation.
This is the so-called sage of Omaha, Warren Buffett. He clearly believes in getting his share of the redistribution of wealth from working people to the wealthiest of elites.
One last note, at a cost of $15 billion, the total probable investment tax credit would be (30% x $15 billion) = $5 billion. The $10 billion of cost most likely could be “borrowed money.”
If they borrowed the $10 billion they would have no equity in the project-which would result in tax free income of $1.574 billion, an infinite return on investment.”
And this from Judith Curry:
“Iowa has enacted an additional state PTC of $10/MWh. Buffet gets a total PTC of $31.5/MWh from both federal and Iowa taxpayers.”
“Those wind credits are equivalent to earning (253/0.31) $816 million on his $5.6 billion wind investment—a 15% return before any operating profit from selling electricity. That is a good deal for the Nebraska billionaire, but not for the rest of us.”
It also appears that he has been twisting some arms in Iowa to make sure things go his way:

Reply to  BFL
July 12, 2015 4:46 pm

BFL, the Iowa part of Berkshire Hathaway wind subsidy feasting is right. I wrote that guest post for Judith.

Cecil S. Teddy
Reply to  Francisco
July 12, 2015 5:10 pm

Typical WUWT misinformed comment. The wind farms don’t get subsidies. The CEFC has a mandate to make investements in alternative energy projects that will provide a commercial return.

Reply to  Cecil S. Teddy
July 12, 2015 7:26 pm

The wind farms don’t get subsidies.
then they have nothing to lose by government action and no reason to complain.

Reply to  Cecil S. Teddy
July 12, 2015 7:51 pm

False. Dead wrong. Their output (what little of it actually is generated) is subsidized. Their factories and their labor is subsidized. Their raw material is subsidized (sent to spoils ponds in China where it freely and uncontrolled pollutes the ground and ground water and air and the dust, but not in the US or Australia or the UK or Canada local lands!), their financing is subsidized, and their taxes are written off, their buildings are subsidized and even their advertising and promotions and research is subsidized.

Cecil S. Teddy
Reply to  Cecil S. Teddy
July 12, 2015 7:57 pm

so what you’re saying is that the wind industry is just like the nuclear industry

Interested Observer
Reply to  Cecil S. Teddy
July 12, 2015 10:59 pm

Umm… Australia’s nuclear industry consists of one very small reactor used exclusively for producing medical isotopes. Peddle your snake-oil somewhere else, Cecil.

a happy little debunker
Reply to  Cecil S. Teddy
July 13, 2015 11:51 am

No Cecil,
The Clean energy council was set up to help overcome obstructions to capital raising for renewable projects.
With wind turbines sprouting like mushrooms, across Australia, capital raising is clearly not obstructed.

Reply to  Cecil S. Teddy
July 16, 2015 1:04 am

Cecil S. Teddy

so what you’re saying is that the wind industry is just like the nuclear industry

Nuclear power plant generates a huge steady flow of electricity, wind power plant generates random peaks of power. If you are not planning to use wind power in some project which can use leftover power, like pumping seawater up in Netherlands, it is worthless. Priceless in the literal way.

Reply to  Francisco
July 12, 2015 6:06 pm

“The fossil fuel industry enjoys them.”
No it doesn’t.
The fossil fuel industry supplies untold billions to the exchequer in taxes, the ‘unreliables’ industry is a drain on the exchequer and gives it to the rich – the 21st century equivalent of the robber barons robbing the poor.

Cecil S. Teddy
Reply to  catweazle666
July 12, 2015 6:30 pm

and the fossil fuel industry is Robin Hood. taking from the rich to give to the poor. LOL

Reply to  catweazle666
July 12, 2015 7:37 pm

In Alberta the oil industry in 2013/14 paid $7.3 billion in royalties to the government. With a population of 4 million people, that represents about $7500 in tax savings for a family of 4.
the result? Every province except Alberta has implemented either a provincial sales tax or the Harmonized Sales Tax. In BC next door, the sales tax is 7%. So, automatically everything in Alberta 7% cost less than BC, as though you just had a 7% raise. Because of Oil.

Reply to  catweazle666
July 12, 2015 7:55 pm

Cecil the fossil fuel industry creates jobs, provides affordable and reliable power and heat for our homes as well as providing fuel for our transportation needs. It makes money and pays taxes as any money making industry does.
Wind and solar power on the other hand has yet to make money, requires government hand outs to get off the ground and continued subsidies to remain in business. Many companies have gone out of business due to simply not being economically viable. They have increased the cost of electricity, are not reliable and since they have never made money do not pay any taxes and when they fail it’s the taxpayer and consumer that takes it on the chin.
I don’t think anyone here is against finding alternative sources of energy to replace fossil fuel as long as it is competitively priced, reliable and economically viable.

Reply to  catweazle666
July 12, 2015 7:59 pm

Unfortunately, now that Alberta elected a punch of DP’s for a provincial government, You can say good-bye surplus, hello sales tax. The other really unfortunate thing is that the DP’s are ahead in the Federal polls as well. Good-bye surplus, hello debt.

Reply to  catweazle666
July 13, 2015 3:27 am

and whatever the govt may pay them..
WE mugs at the pump then return 50% of every tanks price in bloody taxes to the govt
so I figure the govt might offer em some breaks but WE pay for it all and a tidy revenue raiser for govt on top.

David A
Reply to  catweazle666
July 13, 2015 4:19 am

yes, never forget that the US government, federal and state, make more from gasoline then the oil companies.
One LARGE subside of wind and solar is they raise the cost of all electric generation. When four to five percent of your grid power is cause to a 10 to20 percent increase in price of 100 percent of your power, that is a massive subsidy, not labeled as such.

Sal Minella
Reply to  catweazle666
July 13, 2015 6:34 am

Robin Hood did not “take from the rich and give to the poor”, he took back excessive taxes, stolen by the government, and returned them to the oppressed citizenry.

george e. smith
Reply to  Francisco
July 12, 2015 8:12 pm

The fossil fuel industry gets no government or other subsidies. They do exactly what all businesses do, which is to capitalize and depreciate their major assets, over the useful life of those assets; the business purpose of which is to accumulate the capital to obtain new assets when the present ones run out of useful life.
A profit making enterprise has to either recover their investment by depreciation or amass new capital from operating profits.
The semi-conductor industry has a Herculean task in financing its business.
If I throw the start switch on a brand new $100 M silicon wafer fab line, by the time the lights inside the fab have turned on, so any workers can enter to do anything; the whole plant is obsolete, and I have to start saving mu shekels to build a new one. But that new one, will cost $500 M to build; not because of simple cost increases, but because the new one will be for an entirely new process with bigger wafers , and smaller transistors (maybe 1/4 the size or less) and totally new lithography technologies, and everything else.
So the $100 M plant I started today, has to make me a whole lot of profit on my products, plus I have to induce a lot of monied investors to pour in new capital towards that advanced plant, I’m planning. Otherwise everything will come to a screeching halt and it will all collapse.
The motto of silicon valley is: ” If it works, it is obsolete ! ”
All natural resource companies such as fossil fuel companies, have to plan on their well eventually running dry, so they have to invest in new exploration and new recovery techniques, and they gather the funds to do that from their operating profits, and investor inputs, as well as depreciation of their aging assets, which is normally called a “depletion allowance.”
The largest financial beneficiary of the fossil fuels industry, is the US Federal Treasury who get far more in taxes, than the share and bond holders ever get in dividends.
You could use a course in economics 101 Francisco. The drivel you spout is the standard mantra of socialists.

John Meget
Reply to  george e. smith
July 12, 2015 10:32 pm

Can anyone address the trillion+ dollar annual subsidy the greenies claim is given to the oil and gas industry? (IMF, e.g., puts the number at $1.9 trillion per year.) I think it’s nearly all claimed externalities, but would like to see a good analysis of this issue.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 12, 2015 11:13 pm

I believe Willis tackled that in “Potholes In Their Arguments.”

Call A Spade
Reply to  george e. smith
July 13, 2015 2:09 am

Time to pay retail price for the land

Reply to  george e. smith
July 13, 2015 7:57 am

Re-investment is one argument for higher taxes on the rich as it encourages business investment /jobs for the tax deduction versus just throwing the money at huge and numerous estates, and other gaudy expenditures.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 15, 2015 11:29 am

Hi John Meget,
The IMF report you mention is pure imaginary numbers.
Firstly, like all green claims about reliable energy subsidies, they consider tax deductions on legitimate business expenses to be ‘subsidies’ as has already been elaborated by other commenters and which is of course a lot of smoke and mirors, but Grauniad readers lap it up.
It would seem however that redefining tax deductions as ‘subsidies’ didn’t create a number sufficiently gob-smacking as to trigger involuntary wailing and gnashing of teeth among the believers of the cause, so the IMF also added an imaginary number to the sums; their invented fudge factor is the difference between the existing consumer tax on reliable energy and what they imagine to be ‘appropriate’ consumer tax based on the supposed social impact of evil reliable energy (as ozspeaksup observes, in Australia 50% of the cost of a tank of fuel is taxes in one form or other, but apparently 50% tax is too cheap according to the vultures at the IMF).
The IMF states all of this quite unabiguously in the introduction.
Naturally the bankers at the IMF are also desperately concerned with the plight of the poor, thus they also manage to include in their report the assertion that all these imaginary fossil fuel subsidies are in effect a tax on the world’s poor. Since it’s only ‘rich’ people who own cars or heat our homes then even paying a 50% tax, we ‘rich’ people are getting our fuel cheaper than the IMF says we should. All those poor people can’t afford fuel or electricity anyway, so they don’t buy fuel or electricty, they therefore don’t pay the ‘subsidised’ price for it and so aren’t enjoying the benefits of these imaginary subsisdies like we selfish rish people are.
It’s as demented as suggesting that a reduction in income tax is the same as taxing dole bludgers because they won’t see any benefit in the reduced income tax rate.
No word of a lie, the IMF actually manages to put this codswallop in a report for publication without being lampooned for taking the piss.
So to recap, the IMF report on reliable energy subsidies comprises of a main course of manipulated imaginary numbers, with a side order of pious bullshit for afters, and this is the total crap that will be regurgitated from now on by every dedicated non-thinker who read the headline in the lame-stream media

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Francisco
July 12, 2015 8:57 pm

One of the gripes from Greenpeace et al. is that the mining industry including coal like all primary producers gets a fuel tax concession.
The diesel fuel tax was originally introduced to pay for public road building and maintenance and as primary producers use fuel mostly on their own sites (not public roads) they got the concession.
As Chris Berg neatly put it in 2011 (paraphrasing) the lack of an idiot tax does not constitute a subsidy for idiots:

Call A Spade
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 13, 2015 2:07 am

That is bullshit every primary producer abuses this privilege to the detriment of working Australians. Time everyone payed 30% of their income like me and then you have an argument until then you are just another destructive parasite.

Call A Spade
Reply to  Francisco
July 13, 2015 2:03 am

The middle and lower class are the most overtaxed an oil company is just a non thing a imagined entity to say its too heavy taxed is to say that we should pay to breath.
The oil industry belongs to us not the other way around get a grip and learn life is only for the living not the made up.

Reply to  Call A Spade
July 16, 2015 1:14 am

The oil industry belongs to us

The industry belongs to who it belongs. It is a commie thingy to say it belongs to you if it does not belong to you.
Now, I accept taxing oil industry as a practical way of keep the economy running .- it is good for everyone in the end, but don’t come and tell its profits belong to someone who didn’t take risk of owning it. If you are a shareholder (you can easily buy some shares) then you have the risk and you are entitled to some wins, though governments may make your life difficult because they want their share even if it meant you get losses.

David Cage
Reply to  Francisco
July 13, 2015 7:19 am

From my look a the topic the fossil fuel industry on average pays nearly 55% tax with some parts paying over 200%. With hidden restrictions on competition etc on average the renewable energy gets double that as benefits and not the overt few percent they admit to.
Preferential tax breaks are not subsidies any more than not being robbed can be considered a benefit.

Reply to  David Cage
July 13, 2015 7:23 am

“with some parts paying over 200%”

No, a business cannot survive paying over 100% in taxes.

July 12, 2015 2:11 pm

The Aussies are so lucky to have Tony Abbott, and a government, that has caught on to the fact, that wind turbines are a useless, economy destroying SCAM! Ask any of the windpushers if they would be willing to submit their products, to a complete cost/benefit analysis. They will look at you, in horror, and tell you, that it is to “save the earth”, and money is not the issue. Carpetbaggers!!! They are not helping the environment, they are harming it!

Reply to  1957chev
July 12, 2015 2:52 pm


Reply to  fossilsage
July 12, 2015 7:07 pm

He’s taken the wind out of their ‘sales’!

Reply to  1957chev
July 12, 2015 4:12 pm

Nicely summed up….

Reply to  1957chev
July 12, 2015 4:36 pm

And remember he has to contend with a hostile and downright ignorant upper house. Go Tony!

Reply to  cnxtim
July 15, 2015 11:34 am

….And remember also he has to contend with a hostile and downright ignorant media.

David Ball
July 12, 2015 2:17 pm

It is being plastered all over facebook that Denmark has reached 100% wind supplied power to the country. Curious as to the real story behind that headline.

David Ball
Reply to  David Ball
July 12, 2015 2:19 pm

And thanks for all your hard work Eric Worrall !!

Reply to  David Ball
July 12, 2015 2:26 pm

…they pay on average 300% of what we pay…..if the wind stops, they are hooked to the European grid and can back siphon

Reply to  Latitude
July 12, 2015 4:13 pm

Which of course means that they’re “100% Wind Supplied”…..some of the time.

Reply to  Latitude
July 16, 2015 1:25 am

Denmark is small and can rely on Norwegian hydro power, Swedish nuclear plants and German coal. They don’t have to generate their power at all times.
Denmark can also use the heat of failed immigration politics, you could heat several hundred houses with that — and not only heat but also burn.

Bill 2
Reply to  David Ball
July 12, 2015 2:33 pm

Looks like the real story is they reached 140% of their country’s power demand through wind power.

Reply to  Bill 2
July 12, 2015 2:44 pm

Let me guess, it was for one particularly gusty day.

Reply to  Bill 2
July 12, 2015 2:51 pm

They reached that for a short period of time. Their goal is to have 50% of their electricity produced by renewables by 2020. Until then, these announcements are no different than my bragging that my Honda S2000 got seventy miles to the gallon while diving two miles downhill.
Consider this – they produced 140% of their needs over a short time, but don’t expect to reach 50% of their total electrical needs for five years. What does that tell you about the efficiency, variability, and dependability of wind energy?

Reply to  Bill 2
July 12, 2015 3:20 pm

And they forget to tell you that the oversupply is given away to the Norwegians for free, who just reduce the output of their hydropower and have to buy a lot of electricity at high prices the days the wind isn’t blowing, plus that still not one of their fossil fuel power plants is closed…

David A
Reply to  Bill 2
July 13, 2015 4:24 am

…and likely that excess generation was required to be bought and paid for by some other national agreement, and some steady state fossil fuel generation had to shut down or draw back to allow the “renewable” product first use at a much higher price.

Reply to  David Ball
July 12, 2015 3:01 pm

The amount (140%) of electricity supplied was on one day only.

Paul Evans
Reply to  William Martin
July 12, 2015 5:03 pm

William, It was not for a day, but for a moment at 3am when demand was lowest.

Reply to  William Martin
July 12, 2015 9:38 pm

thanks for the “3 am” note. Got to stay on your toes to find more of the scam claims, they are so artful con artists.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  William Martin
July 13, 2015 12:53 am

Had a similar claim in the UK last July. All over the BBC, that wind supplied 25% of our power! The bit that was missing, was it was at 5.30am one sunny July morning!

Reply to  William Martin
July 13, 2015 9:01 am

At a time of year when demand was at it lowest. Come back in November and see why well they do.

Reply to  William Martin
July 13, 2015 6:08 pm

If you’re spending 5 times (or more) as much for wind as for other, what is the point?
… the true cost (finance, design, construction, distribute, maintain over the 20-year life, administer/propagandize, & lost tax revenue) is how much per kw-hr?
Good thing wind only covers the demand for 5 minutes out of the year … if it was all day long, all year long, it would put quite a few people in the poor house.

Reply to  David Ball
July 12, 2015 3:39 pm

The monitoring data doesn’t look like Denmark hit 100% or even 50%:

Billy Liar
Reply to  spetzer86
July 12, 2015 5:02 pm

I just looked; at the time of this post they are importing 2/3 of their electricity. Way to go.

Sandy In Limousin
Reply to  David Ball
July 13, 2015 12:07 am

David Ball
You can monitor Denmark’s electricity supply here (wind not supplying much at time of posting). Whenever I’ve check more power seems to be coming from Norway and Sweden than their windmills. Perhaps the 100^ refers to non-imported power?
Other European grids at these locations
Germany (not real time)
Apart from Spain at 7% all countries are having very low generation by wind
This site gives generation statistics for every country in the world

July 12, 2015 2:25 pm

“It’s understood the directive was issued without the approval or knowledge of Environment Minister Greg Hunt, angering the minister.” Greg Hunt this morning is reported on radio to have denied that this is true.

July 12, 2015 2:27 pm

The Sydney Morning Heralds quote:
“It’s understood the directive was issued without the approval or knowledge of Environment Minister Greg Hunt, angering the minister.” Apparently this was made up.
In today’s the Australian newspaper 13 July ‘Cut and Paste’
Hunt:” I fully support the changes to the CEFC investment……Claims that I have been ‘angered’ are a complete, absolute and utter fabrication”.

Reply to  FrankKarrvv
July 12, 2015 4:41 pm

Environment Minister Hunt explained on Sky News last night that the CEFC was merely being directed back to its original mandate (set up by the Labour Govt.) to focus on large scale solar, emerging technology, and efficiency increases. He had issued a letter to this effect back in June.

Kevn Begaud
Reply to  FrankKarrvv
July 12, 2015 5:03 pm

From once a leading and reputable newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald has morphed into an unreadable left wing apologist not far away from The Guardian, that rails against the conservative Abbott Government. As noted in comments here, its beat-up about a “new Cabinet split” in the Abbott Government is false.
This is from The Australian newspaper on July 1, last: “The Sydney Morning Herald’s ­editor-in-chief Darren Goodsir lost objectivity and was motivated by malice when he crafted a headline claiming (Treasurer) Joe Hockey was “for sale”, the Federal Court has found.
“Federal Court judge Richard White yesterday ruled that a ­poster and tweets promoting the story with the words “Treasurer for sale” were defamatory, awarding Mr Hockey $200,000 in damages following a year-long dispute with the publisher.”

Reply to  FrankKarrvv
July 13, 2015 6:11 pm

It was Greg’s brother, Mike, that was angry about the whole thing.

July 12, 2015 2:28 pm

The government has previously said it wants the corporation to focus on investing in innovative clean energy proposals and technologies rather than mature technologies that can be financed by mainstream lenders.

Yes, wind power is a mature technology… has been for a couple of hundred years. No need to ‘jump start’ technology that old. Never should have been subsidized in the first place.

Reply to  H.R.
July 12, 2015 9:14 pm

Small windmills have powered pumps and grinding facilities for several hundred years.
Slow occasional power performing tasks with very low schedule priorities.
Even with the ease of erecting a small windmill, say to pump water into a stock tank, windmills are not useful over much of the country as windless minutes, hours, days and even weeks are all too frequent; not forgetting frequent storms chewing up their lighter construction.

July 12, 2015 2:35 pm

“The wind industry has regularly claimed for years that their technology is close to cost parity with coal. So I expect the withdrawal of government subsidies for wind turbines will have no impact on future wind projects.”
Yes – good point.

Reply to  bobburban
July 12, 2015 3:22 pm

The wind industry has consistently failed to acknowledge the very substantial side effects due to producing an unreliable source of power. Wind or solar can never be considered equal in value to reliable power sources.
The Gen 4 nuclear reactors, several of whichare well along and costed , such as Transatomic Power’s
molten salt reactor, make the idea of using a primitive technology like wind or solar ludicrous in every conceivable criteria – safety, cost, environmental footprint, ability to burn up nuclear wastes, etc.
Only the truly ignorant are pushing wind and solar. Govts are so clueless.

Billy Liar
Reply to  arthur4563
July 12, 2015 5:05 pm

Only the truly ignorant greedy are pushing wind and solar.
Fixed it for you.

Reply to  arthur4563
July 12, 2015 5:40 pm

A new nuclear reactor system, whether it be molten salt, travelling wave or thorium would take at least 30 years years to come on line. In the meantime ……….?

Reply to  arthur4563
July 12, 2015 6:15 pm

From Gil Paton…

A new nuclear reactor system, whether it be molten salt, travelling wave or thorium would take at least 30 years years to come on line. In the meantime ……….?

Natural gas and coal. Because its working fine at the moment and because CO2 warming (or “carbon pollution” if you prefer), that is in any way problematic, is a bogus scam.

Reply to  arthur4563
July 12, 2015 7:40 pm

30 years years to come on line. In the meantime ……….?
Oz has a lot more than a 30 year supply of coal. a lot more.

Reply to  arthur4563
July 12, 2015 9:30 pm

Australia has at least 500 years of known reserves of coal at current consumption rates.

July 12, 2015 2:35 pm

It’s much better to save the money and wait for newer technologies to emerge. Technologies that are actually more economical than fossil fuels. This means that no subsidies will be necessary.

Reply to  wobble
July 12, 2015 2:55 pm

so nuclear power: as soon as you get lunatics not regulating it

Reply to  fossilsage
July 12, 2015 3:36 pm

the telegraph
Areva hopes nuclear option won’t go into meltdown
Delays to Areva’s nuclear reactors could stop the UK hitting its emissions targets
Unqualified welders and badly-mixed concrete are just two among 1,700 “quality deviations” that have dogged the construction of Europe’s first nuclear plant since Chernobyl. It has turned into a costly €2.3bn (£2.1bn) nightmare for Areva, the company, leading the severely delayed build at Olkiluoto, a tranquil, pine-forested island off the coast of Finland.
But Rob Davies, director of UK new nuclear for the French state-owned group, insists Britain’s fleet of new reactors will not meet in the same fate.
According to Mr Davies, Britain is at the forefront of Areva’s plans to show it can deliver a fleet of stations on time, in budget and without safety hitches.

Reply to  fossilsage
July 12, 2015 4:51 pm

Areva’s proposed Hinckley design is one of the worst of the Gen 3. What is needed is some Gen 4.

Reply to  fossilsage
July 12, 2015 6:02 pm

Sergei- the problems with the Olkiluoto plant are worse than you state. The project is 9 years behind schedule and costs have nearly trebled from 3 billion euros to 8.5B. It is the same for a similar reactor in France. As was stated in The Financial Times last December “construction of unit 3 (at Olkiluoto) has descended into farce” It is Areva that will go into meltdown.

Reply to  fossilsage
July 13, 2015 5:01 am

Just what would nextgen 4 reactors be susceptible to.. So much research to do before gas is depleted.
Areva also responsible for:
“What surprised us is that the people from Areva didn’t react to such a high abnormal value,” Sylvie Cadet-Mercier, who follows new reactors for the IRSN, told Le Canard.
The IRSN note also points out that the technology Areva chose to build the Flamanville 3 reactor vessel was “technologically backward compared to that used in the existing operational fleet (of nuclear plants)”.
Areva’s “incomprehensible” silence over the anomalies meant that it proceeded with installing the 160-ton part, which takes six years to complete, instead of forging a new one, said the IRSN note.
The plant is already running five years late and costs have tripled.
Designed to be the safest reactors in the world and among the most energy-efficient, the EPR has suffered huge delays in models under construction in France, Finland and China.
Areva is contracted to provide two of its EPRs to Hinkley Point in Somerset station, a development the European Commission estimates will cost £24.5 billion.
EDF, the majority French state-owned energy group, is in the final phase of negotiations with the British government on building the two plants in Britain, which in February it said would be “possible in the next few months”.
Experts say the same “production process” as for Flamanville had been used on reactor vessels destined for the British-based plants, along with two in China and one in Calvert Cliffs, Maryland, in America.
The fresh revelation came a month after it emerged that nuclear safety inspectors had detected crucial faults in the cooling system of the Flamanville reactor, exposing it to the risk of meltdown.

Reply to  fossilsage
July 13, 2015 6:03 pm

Fundamentally the problems with Olkiluoto and Flamanville are not nuclear ones. They are basic project management. All of these happened, not because of anything nuclear but because of basic deficiencies in quality assurance and inspection. Wouldn’t have mattered if Areva was building a 2 metre square toolshed. There would still have been the same kind of problems.

Reply to  wobble
July 13, 2015 8:14 am

I can tell you EdF will never get a contract to build any UK reactors. The most likely vendor will be Toshiba (Westinghouse). To think my old company (BNFL) used to own Westinghouse.

Reply to  Gil Paton
July 13, 2015 6:05 pm

Gil, reactor construction is very little about the technology or the builder. Mostly it’s about state-to-state politics and the financing.

July 12, 2015 2:37 pm

Woo hoo! Go Australia! Persuade the UK government to follow your lead and we’ll let your struggling cricketers keep the Ashes! (for our American cousins, cricket is like baseball on Valium and a game lasts 5 days…)

Reply to  Brent Hargreaves
July 12, 2015 4:41 pm

For Americans, Cricket is to Baseball what Chess is to Checkers.
And as for our team don’t be so cocky, remember what happened the last time the MCC attempted a test series with that much overconfidence.
“wahh mummy I want to go home!” 🙂

Reply to  cnxtim
July 12, 2015 5:03 pm

Performance Enhancing Drugs on steroids, then. ;>)

Reply to  Brent Hargreaves
July 13, 2015 6:29 pm

Watching or playing “… baseball on Valium…?”
1) Watching cricket is like watching baseball while on Valium.
2)Playing cricket is like playing baseball while on Valium.
3)Watching cricket is like watching baseball while the baseball players are on Valium.
Or perhaps cricket is like baseball if the umpires (officials) are on Valium?

July 12, 2015 2:42 pm

Only in the world of left wing politics would not subsidizing something be equivalent to an act of war.

July 12, 2015 2:50 pm

Wonderful. Another small step back to sanity.

July 12, 2015 3:06 pm

With all of those windmills cranking out electricity (sometimes) and selling it at 0.08¢/kWh I am sure the windmill industry need no further subsidies globally. They will make an absolute fortune selling all of that “free” energy at those rates once they recoup their investment plus removal and restoration costs. 😉

July 12, 2015 3:08 pm

“war on wind”??? What about the war on humanity the ecotards are running?

Reply to  Justthinkin
July 12, 2015 10:02 pm

… or war on prosperity (except for their own, of course).

July 12, 2015 3:23 pm

And his name is Joe Hockey…how much better can it get?

Reply to  christopher swift (@swiftsteel7)
July 13, 2015 9:21 am

Don’t listen to Joe Hockey’s schtick.

July 12, 2015 3:25 pm

This is actually good news. Maybe a few other countries will get the message = windmills equal higher electricity costs for consumers. I wonder if the good old USA will get the message, or elect Clinton or Sanders or Bush who are all for windmill and solar farm subsidies…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 12, 2015 7:13 pm

So is Lindsey Graham.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 12, 2015 8:30 pm

Anyone else think that Republicans should be financing Sanders’ campaign for the D nomination ?

Reply to  philincalifornia
July 12, 2015 8:36 pm

philincalifornia commented : “Anyone else think that Republicans should be financing Sanders’ campaign for the D nomination ?”
No! Let Hilarity win the nomination. “Never interfere with the enemy when they are making mistakes”.

Reply to  philincalifornia
July 12, 2015 10:06 pm

Hmmmm, it would take the brainless “first female president” vote, which would probably be large, out of the equation.

David A
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 13, 2015 4:30 am

oh they got the message. Under this admins plans, “electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket”

July 12, 2015 3:27 pm

That Sydney Morning Herald article sure likes to use the words “invested” and “investment” when describing the money that’s been ripped from taxpayer’s wallets to hand to these dead-end wind projects.

Joel O'Bryan
July 12, 2015 3:28 pm

With China’s looming economic meltdown, commodity coal prices will plummet. So Abbott chooses Cheap coal-generated reliable power over expensive intermittent electricity. One is domestic product, the other comes from imports. Not a difficult choice.

July 12, 2015 3:37 pm

Great stuff Tony, wish you could cross the Tasman and sort out the mess we have here. Get rid of our Emissions Trading Scheme for a start.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 12, 2015 7:50 pm

rogerthesurf Just for thought from a mere 100 years ago

Myself I think these are worth looking at no matter what side of the argument you are on

July 12, 2015 3:39 pm

Breaking wind!

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  markl
July 12, 2015 4:40 pm

“Shaka, when the walls fell.”

July 12, 2015 4:00 pm

Don’t get too excited. As is often the case, things are not exactly as they seem.
The current Australian administration is crippled by a system which includes a senate full of eco-loons and other ignorant misfits.
With the price of iron ore now at about 33% of its peak, the country borrows more than a hundred million a day to fund these idiotic programs like the clean energy commission. The Coalition struck a deal with the cross bench in the senate to focus on investment in solar projects rather than wind.
The real demon is the RET (renewable energy target) which mandates that electricity customers subsidise the criminals that operate these bird and bat demolishing these abhorrent pieces of apparatus.

Peter Brunson
July 12, 2015 4:04 pm

what is the “subsidy” being referred to by Francisco?

Reply to  Peter Brunson
July 13, 2015 1:20 am

Francisco doesn’t know.

Tom J
July 12, 2015 4:23 pm

I don’t know why exactly, but looking at that burning wind turbine got me to thinking about underwear. And that got me to wondering where the name, jockey shorts, came from. What popped immediately to mind was that the name jockey shorts had to come from the name, jock strap. But, where did that name come from? Well, it so happens that jock straps were developed for bicycle jockies back in the 1870s so as to support a certain pole like part of the male bicycle jockey’s anatomy, and keep it from flopping wildly around as the bicycle jockey rode around on the twirling wheels of his bicycle.
Pole. Flopping. Twirling. See, it’s all starting to make sense after all.
Now, I’m wondering if we could maybe cover up each wind turbine with a huge jock strap. And, for the burning wind turbines we could maybe make the jock strap out of flame retardant material. Of course the wind farms wouldn’t really look any better that way but the idea would have to be at least worth a couple subsidies. And, it would seem appropriate for those giant castrators of the sky.

trucker bob
July 12, 2015 4:45 pm

As an extra bonus, this morning it is being reported that subsidies to small scale and household solar are also to finish.

Reply to  trucker bob
July 12, 2015 4:54 pm

Yeah, just noticed that.
‘A directive banning the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) from investing in existing wind technology will also apply to small-scale solar projects, a move that will effectively throttle the industry, the Australian Solar Council said.’

trucker bob
Reply to  ironicman
July 12, 2015 5:07 pm

It,s the old build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door, If new technology can support itself at a competitive or lower cost to that of the existing technology people will support it. If it needs subsidising don’t ask the the taxpayer to prop it up. This directive is well overdue.

July 12, 2015 5:01 pm

Meanwhile back to reality in Australia-‘Making Sense of Climate Science Denial’ The University of Queensland.( Free Course)
Meet the instructors
bio for John Cook
John Cook
Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute University of Queensland
bio for Daniel Bedford
Daniel Bedford
Professor of Physical Geography and Climate Science Weber State University, Utah
bio for Gavin Cawley
Gavin Cawley
Senior Lecturer in Computing Sciences University of East Anglia
bio for Kevin Cowtan
Kevin Cowtan
Research Fellow, Department of Chemistry University of York, England
bio for Sarah A. Green
Sarah A. Green
Professor of Chemistry Michigan Technological University
bio for Peter Jacobs
Peter Jacobs
PhD Student, Department of Environmental Science and Policy George Mason University
bio for Scott Mandia
Scott Mandia
Professor of Earth and Space Sciences and Assistant Chair of the Physical Sciences Department Suffolk County Community College, New York
bio for Dana Nuccitelli
Dana Nuccitelli
Environmental Scientist Skeptical Science
bio for Mark Richardson
Mark Richardson
Researcher University of Reading, Currently at NASA JPL
bio for Keah Schuenemann
Keah Schuenemann
Meteorology Professor Metropolitan State University of Denver
bio for Andy Skuce
Andy Skuce
Independent Geoscience Consultant Skeptical Science
bio for Robert Way
Robert Way
PhD Candidate in the Department of Geography University of Ottawa, Canada
bio for Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
Director of the Global Change Institute (GCI) and Professor of Marine Science University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia
Pursue a Verified Certificate to highlight the knowledge and skills you gain
View a PDF of a sample edX certificate
Official and Verified
Receive a credential signed by the instructor, with the institution logo to verify your achievement and increase your job prospects
Easily Shareable
Add the certificate to your CV, resume or post it directly on LinkedIn
Proven Motivator
Get the credential as an incentive for your successful course completion
Enroll Now
I would like to receive email from University of Queensland and learn about its other programs.
Sorry for this waste of space but I could not resist ‘Copy and Paste’ of the ‘Team’
Maybe we should all join, just for fun.

Reply to  D.I.
July 12, 2015 5:07 pm

Where is Michael Mann on that list?

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 12, 2015 5:31 pm

Probably on the ‘Student’ list gaining an EDX certificate to put on his CV.

Reply to  D.I.
July 13, 2015 4:34 am

If it is free , where is the money coming from to pay the costs of running the course , even if the eminent academics listed are giving their services without charge. From my , admittedly limited, experience of the costs of running a college post grad, science based, course the margin , even with fee paying students, was thin.

July 12, 2015 5:04 pm

If you are going to put solar panels on you roof you should pay the full price – sorry Anthony…

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 13, 2015 3:14 pm

Which he did, “Sorry J. Philip”.

King of Cool
July 12, 2015 5:09 pm

Firstly I found it hilarious that Tim Flannery was standing in front of the cameras this morning screaming for more funding to get rid of that poisonous “carbon pollution” in time for the Paris extravaganza when outside it is freezing and we have snow cover over Eastern Australia as far as Queensland.
Yes, as a few people have already said, Environment Minister Greg Hunt was completely in the picture as far as future funding of wind farms is concerned. So the report in the Sydney Morning Herald is a total beat up. In fact Hunt says he was instrumental in advising the Senate of the fact in writing some weeks ago.
What the SMH may have assumed or insinuated is that as Greg Hunt’s portfolio has no control whatsoever over the purse strings of the so called green bank, as he is a dedicated environmentalist, he must have argued against it. But by the way he was defending the party line last night I don’t think so.
Greg’s and the government’s argument is that as wind and household solar are already established technologies with multi billion dollar Corporate investments why should they be given more taxpayers money? – which will have to be borrowed money as we are still paying off Labors’s debt. What little money we can afford should be spent on emerging renewable technologies such as large scale solar which was the CEFC’s original aim. So it is more a financial priority decision than an ideological one.
To say that Tony Abbott is at war with windmills I think is drawing a long bow. Yes he hates them as does his treasurer Joe Hockey but I think he realises he can’t pull them down. But if they are to survive they will have to do it own merits. I agree and time will tell whether they do.

Reply to  King of Cool
July 13, 2015 4:47 am

Play MP3 of CEFC confirms advice sought on Govt directive to cut wind and solar funding ( minutes)
Samantha Donovan
The Corporation received the instructions from the Treasuruer and Finance Minister
18:15:00 13/07/2015
CEFC confirms advice sought on Govt directive to cut wind and solar funding
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has confirmed it is seeking advice on the Federal Government’s directive that it no longer finance wind farms and small scale solar projects. The Federal Opposition and the Greens say the government is out of step with the rest of the world when it comes to renewable energy. But the Federal Environment Minister says Australians will be happy to see the CEFC focus on innovative technologies like large scale solar projects. More
Frankly I dont want to see ANY large scale setups, home for personal OFF GRID
and let industry use oil gas whatever. stop stuffing us round.

July 12, 2015 5:14 pm

The last paragraph is the killer argument. No long winded discussion needed.

July 12, 2015 5:21 pm

King of Cool “large scale solar” you mean solar assisted Natural Gas?

King of Cool
Reply to  fossilsage
July 12, 2015 7:12 pm

Hi fossilage,
Greg Hunt was asked what he meant by emerging technologies by Fran Kelly this morning on the ABC Radio National breakfast show.
His answer included parabolic, trough and molten solar, tidal and geothermal. He did not elaborate on this in his speech in May at the 2nd Emissions Reductions Fund Summit.
Instead he concentrated on the projects that had been successful under the Government’s Direct Action Policy in industrial energy efficiency, transport, power stations, agriculture, soil carbon capture and forestry:–2nd-Emissions-Reduction-Fund-Summit.aspx
It appears to me to be aimed at obtaining and proving results in emissions reduction to meet agreed international targets without hurting the economy, which is essentially Tony Abbott’s Direct Action policy or as Mr Hunts puts it:
“Australia has just contracted for the largest reduction in emissions in Australian history.
With Direct Action it has an approach that is practical, flexible, low-cost and efficient in actually reducing emissions. It is outcomes-focused. ..”
The Greens and the Labor Party are screaming however and methinks hate the fact that Direct Action can be shown to be working and are coming up with every argument under the sun (pun intended), on the big media issue of the day today, to show that without more, more, more funding for RE we are doomed.

Reply to  King of Cool
July 13, 2015 5:09 am

Labors in the doo doo re shorten and the others right now
so any deflection is jumped at.
typically Vic Labor govts just shat on us n given the appro to 2 huge bird shredding areas one coastal and one near Grampians

July 12, 2015 5:22 pm

Unfortunately it’s not a “withdrawal of subsidies.” It’s a cessation of new below-market financing. Although since the CEFC claims it is earning commercial returns, and has been asked to lift its return to a level considered impossible, one wonders why they would WANT such financing.
Regrettably all the other subsidies remain in place – the RET, the explicit transfers and the costs to the grid of their useless sporadic supply.

July 12, 2015 5:23 pm

The wind industry has regularly claimed for years that their technology is close to cost parity with coal. So I expect the withdrawal of government subsidies for wind turbines will have no impact on future wind projects.

You gotta love that one. Hoisted with their own Petards. All you have to do is force them to prove what they are saying. If they say they don’t need subsidies, stop the subsidies. You gotta love it. America should be so smart. BTW, is it possible for the Wind industry in Australia to reach parity with coal, and the US wind industry not? If parity is reached in Australia, shouldn’t we be looking at removing the subsidies here in the US as well?

July 12, 2015 6:11 pm

“Analysts say $8.7 billion is expected to be invested in wind power in the next five years, while the corporation has invested about $300 million in wind projects to date.”
The actual investment in no way can match the expected investment on any period. Therefore, the venture capital that the Australian Government is collecting is going into the hands of Criminal Government Misters and directly into their private offshore bank accounts (Swiss).
While it is a nice thing that the current PM is trying to address and account for, the majority of the Australian Government Bureaucracy disparately want the PM dead and are creating a funding mechanism to have him dead.
No Ha ha

July 12, 2015 6:33 pm

Greg Hunt, Twitter, yesterday:
The Fairfax story today is factually wrong and is a misleading beat up.
More Hunt:
Fairfax was told on Friday that the mandate reflected the agreement with crossbench senators — as detailed in a letter from myself to the senators that was tabled in the Senate and widely reported at the time.
And yet more from the Minister:
This agreement was extensively discussed between and jointly approved by Minister Cormann and myself.
Fairfax are blowhards. Hunt again:
I fully support the changes to the CEFC investment mandate and any suggestion to the contrary is categorically wrong. Claims that I have been “angered” are a complete, absolute and utter fabrication.
The Hunt Twitter tornado finally calms with these tweets:
I’ve been repeatedly critical of the CEFC investing taxpayer funds in projects such as existing wind farms, rather than focusing on solar and emerging technologies. Our policy is to abolish the CEFC but in the meantime it should focus on solar and emerging technologies as was originally intended.

July 12, 2015 6:50 pm

In the future, rather than repeat leftist propaganda from sources such as the Sydney Morning Herald, ABC, Fairfax, etc, may I suggest Andrew Bolt at as he has more honest reporting and is certainly more balanced.

July 12, 2015 7:27 pm

“they’ve demanded the commission focus on developing new technology.”
I wonder if they will deign to look at LENR. The 1 MW plant has now been running well for 140 days

July 12, 2015 7:46 pm

Sorry if it’s been posted elsewhere, it’s yesterday’s news and it’s a bit tangential ….. BUT, Solar Impulse 2 is not a happy camper, despite being on the lovely Big Island:

July 12, 2015 7:50 pm

It sounds like PM Abbott might be listening to reason. Perhaps from *Maurice Newman among others who are not taken in by the propaganda deluge.
*(Chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council).

July 12, 2015 7:51 pm

I am a 1st time commenter here. I came across this blog post on wind energy today, Any thoughts?

Reply to  jg1
July 12, 2015 8:33 pm


Reply to  jg1
July 12, 2015 9:25 pm

The topic was covered above in this same thread, just page search for Denmark.
Meanwhile, This tells you all you need:

“…On an unusually windy day, Denmark found itself producing 116% of its national electricity needs from wind turbines yesterday evening. By 3am on Friday, when electricity demand dropped, that figure had risen to 140%…”

A very rare event. When they post that Denmark’s bird killers have produced 100% for week without pause, let us know.
Otherwise, fossil fuel energy generation fills in the gaps. Shut down all of the fossil fuel generating facilities and Denmark’s going to be dark and cold, a lot.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  jg1
July 12, 2015 9:31 pm

Go back to the comment at 2:17 pm and follow along.

Reply to  jg1
July 12, 2015 10:19 pm

I was born in Denmark – windy days are NOT unususal. But windless days are. When walking the countryside in Jutland you always know which is west : all trees and bushes have a lean! If you had to pick a place in the world where windpower could possibly pay for itself, pick Denmark.

Sandy In Limousin
Reply to  AndyE
July 13, 2015 12:28 am

Report here for interest
For the UK the the The Western Isles, The Western Highlands, Orkneys and Shetlands are probably windier than Denmark. Very few locations anywhere in the UK achieve 50% load factors. The best onshore being a 80kW installation in northern England at about 54-55%
Check the data here (sorry about the long URL)
or start searching here for all renewables

July 12, 2015 8:34 pm

The answer my friend is
Blowin’ in the Wind
by Bob Dylan

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Max Photon
July 12, 2015 9:32 pm

Long time, no see.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
July 13, 2015 1:21 am

Just like Alice Springs.
Long time no sea.

July 12, 2015 9:04 pm

Windmills are neither renewable nor environmentally friendly through their life cycle from recovery to reclamation. The driver is ostensibly both, but not the technology, and not the massive deployments in “farms”. Nor is it a reliable source of energy production. It is an exceptional technology with highly circumstantial value.

July 12, 2015 9:27 pm

Way to go, Tony Abbott and Australia!
A major step towards reducing debt.

July 12, 2015 9:30 pm
John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Tim
July 12, 2015 9:43 pm

That’s interesting but I think the increase of the good gas CO2 [TGGC] ought not be relegated to projects that are costly, inefficient, and mostly useless. Perhaps if brewers and vintners doubled the fermentation of grains, grapes, and other fruits the world be be better off and a happier place. Cheers!

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 12, 2015 9:45 pm

be be better = people of the world would be

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 12, 2015 10:38 pm

John have you ever done any home brewing? I did years ago. Now that I’m semi-retired I’m hoping to start again. Just a matter of the right sugars and hardy enough yeast.

July 12, 2015 9:32 pm

I’m trying to figure out these supposed subsidies that the fossil fuel industries are getting. Perhaps the people making this claim could be a bit more specific regarding which countries they are speaking of and what subsidies they are handing out? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Qatar? UAE? Russia? Iran? Mexico? Venezuela? These countries subsidize their oil production? LOL. Without tax and royalty revenue on oil, many of these countries would simply collapse.

July 12, 2015 9:36 pm

provoking a warning he is putting international investment at risk.
Perhaps somebody could explain to the Sydney Morning Herald that when foreign companies stop “investing” because they no longer get subsidies, it means that tax payer dollars are no longer being exported to foreign countries. Why any country would want to do that is beyond me.

July 12, 2015 10:27 pm

Please advise Mr. Tony Abbott that he would be welcomed to run for governor of California. We desperately need some common sense on the subject of CAGW. Jerry Brown is totally over the top and our electrical rates are again going to be increased for the “green” save the world, destroy California movement.

July 12, 2015 10:28 pm

I think it is outrageous to claim that the government is subsidizing the oil and gas industry. Here is some data from Exxon-Mobil, (either 1 or 2 largest capitalized Company in the US)
From the 2014 10K of Exxon-Mobile petroleum company reported to the SEC
Taxes(Income 18 Billion, Sales 29.3 Billion, and other Taxes and Duties 32.3 Billion) : Total of about 80 Billion in Taxes..
Net Profit 33 Billion
Depreciation and Depletion 17 Billion (“Part or most of this is claimed to be a Government subsidy by the green lobby)!!

David A
Reply to  DTaylor
July 13, 2015 4:46 am

The green lobby also claims all the funds to oil production from governments that own oil to be subsidies.

July 12, 2015 10:29 pm

I just spoke with my girlfriend in Darwin. She said the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Co.) is relentlessly frying Abbot for pulling the wind subsidies. Their news is apparently at least as one sided on the CAGW nonsense as Europe and the U.S. – maybe even worse.

Reply to  Scott
July 13, 2015 5:18 am

oh yes Aunty ABC is soooo biased that its nauseating listening most days..but its that or commercial yadda yadda otherwise.

Reply to  Scott
July 13, 2015 8:38 am

A lot of the CAGW nonsense in U.S. media outlets looks a lot like public service ad placements packaged as news stories. That ad space saturation approach can come from the one-track minded Federal agencies and NGOs. Publishers love the funding streams and will relax reporting standards in order to attract more ad spending. It works, in its own disingenuous way.

July 12, 2015 10:30 pm

I would strongly recommend Rud Istvan’s recent article at Climate Etc. on energy storage solutions for intermittent (wind, solar):
It’s not happening. No amount of government subsidy is likely to overcome the fundamental obstacles and the fact that back up power storage costs many times more that windmills themselves.

Daniel Vogler
July 12, 2015 11:06 pm

There’s a way better design for wind turbines thant his. Big grenade companies won’t look inton something else other than their “perfect” products. Here, check this amazing wind turbine For a spin..

Daniel Vogler
Reply to  Daniel Vogler
July 12, 2015 11:07 pm

Green. Not grenade. Lol eyes half awake.

Reply to  Daniel Vogler
July 13, 2015 11:53 am

Daniel Vogler:
Please explain how to feather a Waters Rotor.

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  richardscourtney
July 14, 2015 8:44 am

So far as I can understand, the open end of the rotor faces the on-coming wind. Hence the on-coming air, being decelerated, increases the pressure inside the rotor, and this higher pressure air escapes through the slots. As all slots have the same angle to the circumference, this creates thrust, and the rotor spins. Standard mechanical application of a governor, as the rotor spins, it rotates the governor, and if the balls are raised too high a mechanical leverage turns the rotor a bit off the wind, thus reducing the amount of air captured and hence the rotor speed is reduced.
Hope this satisfies you, Richard. If not, there could be no doubt a far more complicated way of doing it.
Most Australian farm windmills have a large fin at the rear. If they overspeed the fin is angled so that the fan is turned some way off the wind. Application of old technology.
Vertical turbines work the opposite way around, On one side the immediately adjacent air moving past is captured by the blades and enters the rotor. This increases pressure inside, and the air is forced out the other side, thus forcing the rotor to rotate. Normally seen on top of chimneys to power an axial fan which lifts the air up the chimney, thus enabling a fire to burn better. Large versions to be seen in “Earth Garden” and similar magazines where old 40 gallon drums have slots cut in their sides and the steel is twisted slightly to form the blades. Probably powers a converted washing machine motor, and hence lead acid batteries. Usable no matter what direction the wind is blowing from, and over speed is rarely a worry as the thing is not so well machined that high speed is ever likely to be obtained!

Reply to  richardscourtney
July 14, 2015 11:13 pm

Dudley Horscroft:
Thankyou for your answer.
Yes, those methods would work for small rotors, but I have doubts about large ones (power varies with the cube of wind speed and wind provides gusts).
The more important issue that my question was intended to engender is why there is not rapid adoption of this new rotor if it works.

July 12, 2015 11:15 pm

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
About time.
The billion dollar wind industry should learn to stand on its own two feet and not raise electricity prices to enable it to compete with cheap, reliable, efficient fossil fuels.
Australia’s once cheap energy was its greatest competitive asset. Now with Carbon taxes, green energy RET and green subsidies, manufacturing and other energy intensive industries have moved offshore.
Time to wind back the rent-seeking green (unreliable) energy scam.
Well done Tony Abbot and the conservative Australian Govt – genuinely looking out for Australian job and prosperity interests.

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 13, 2015 2:03 am

Apparently this Joe Hockey has a stick that matters. Mike, take note!

July 13, 2015 4:36 am

At the recent 10th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, one of the speakers , Wolfgang Muller,, General Secretary of European Institute for Climate and Energy reported on the German experience with wind turbines and solar panels . They have 72,000 MW of installed renewable energy, 35000 MW in wind turbines and 37,400 MW in solar panels. The combined performance is that 75% of the time the output is less than 20% of the nameplate capacity. 90 % of the time the wind turbine output is below 30% of the name plate capacity. The output of the solar panels is just as poor, with 55% of the time the output is blow 10% of capacity. Fortunately they have coal or nuclear backup and access to an international grid, otherwise blackouts and brown outs would be a frequent occurrence. Alarmists who propose to eliminate all fossil fuel usage and go entirely to renewables are misleading the public about what is practical or feasible even with batteries. If you cannot produce the power because of lack of wind or sun, batteries are of little help. Fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear backup is absolutely necessary with renewable energies . The G7 leaders who recently came back from a summit in Europe proclaiming that the world should aim for fossil fuel free world by the end of this century, their goal appears to be just political nonsense . Even as they stated this proclamation , Germany, a senior G7 member is replacing all their 17 nuclear power plants with 23 new coal fired plants . So who is kidding the world about renewables and the feasibility of eliminating of fossil fuel. .

July 13, 2015 4:47 am

Information about world wide subsidies for various energy types

July 13, 2015 4:56 am

With electricity prices so high already in Australia , more subsidies is the last thing they need

July 13, 2015 5:01 am

With electricity prices so high in Australia , more subsidies is the last thing that they need

July 13, 2015 6:39 am

Wind powered turbines,
It’s now time to call them
Unnecessary solutions
To an imaginary problem.

July 13, 2015 7:06 am

The Abbott government is addressing all those green commitments made by the former Gillard government that were unfunded commitments reliant on continued borrowings. The Gillard government took Australia from a country of no federal debt to one that borrows $100 million a day, and now the Abbott government is having to deal with the consequences.
Climate change is not a global priority because climate has always changed and more interestingly, nobody even knows just how it will change in the future or when it will change. Abbott, however, has to deal with the present to ensure Australia can deal with the future by not allowing Australia to get even close to the debacle that Greece now finds it in. Hence, Abbott is showing fiscal responsibility by cutting unnecessary expenditure such as green subsidies.

July 13, 2015 7:25 am

“Tony Abbott has dramatically escalated his war on wind power, creating a new cabinet split and provoking a warning he is putting international investment at risk.”
Question: Is it really “international investment” if you are giving them the funds from the national tax revenue collections to build the thing in the first place? It seems to me to be “national investment” with international stock ownership, which, by the by, is coming from those that like not having any risk in their portfolios.

Ralph Kramden
July 13, 2015 7:39 am

Excellent. I wish the US would do the same.

July 13, 2015 7:42 am

“War on wind power” laugh out loud. These people invested money into a unsustainable boondoggle that was padded with beaucoup tax subsidies. Once the subsidies are removed, the project is no longer viable. Cry me a river.

Say What?
July 13, 2015 7:46 am

They are worried about losing foreign investment? Ask someone from Ontario Canada how that wind energy is working for them. Samsung got a long term contract of about 20 years. Samsung was originally collecting about 85 cent per kilowatt hour when the average rate was about 5 cents per kwh. At times of surplus we shut idled the gas powered plants or sold the excess to the US at the 5 cent rate. We pay through the nose and lose when they sell it to the US. At the very onset, they warned Ontarians that the rate of electricity would go up 145% over several years. I think that the losing that particular foreign investment might be a good thing for Australia. I wish we could do the same. Congratulations to them on seeing through this alarmists’ scam.

July 13, 2015 8:17 am

Bill Gates has recently said much the same thing a few days ago.
In an interview with the UK Financial Times he said that current renewable technologies could only reduce global CO2 emissions at a “beyond astronomical” economic cost. And so he said the focus should be on much more R&D and innovation.
Financial Times report:

July 13, 2015 8:31 am

Australia has access to the same grid competitive, utility scale solar that has now reached competitive status without subsidy. This requires 1) recognition of the facts in real time and 2) effective communications on this situation and its obvious implications for changing government programs and mindsets. Otherwise the same out of date arguments will proceed from advocacy groups and the uncompetitive solar and wind players. Voters need regular updates on relative costs in renewable energy and information to judge uncompetitive players and their arguments.

July 13, 2015 10:04 am

This is a summary of what your post indicated. Not only is there a problem with the lack of wind but the units have mechanical problems and wear out prematurely , Why would anyone want to subsidize this failed industry
Wear and Tear Hits Wind Farm Output and Economic Lifetime
Posted on December 20, 2012 by Lochgelly in Environment with 2 Comments on Wear and Tear Hits Wind Farm Output and Economic Lifetime .
The Renewable Energy Foundation today published a new study, The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark, showing that the economic life of onshore wind turbines is between 10 and 15 years, not the 20 to 25 years projected by the wind industry itself, and used for government projections.
The work has been conducted by one of the UK’s leading energy & environmental economists, Professor Gordon Hughes of the University of Edinburgh, and has been anonymously peer-reviewed. This groundbreaking study applies rigorous statistical analysis to years of actual wind farm performance data from wind farms in both the UK and in Denmark.
The results show that after allowing for variations in wind speed and site characteristics the average load factor of wind farms declines substantially as they get older, probably due to wear and tear. By 10 years of age the contribution of an average UK wind farm to meeting electricity demand has declined by a third.
This decline in performance means that it is rarely economic to operate wind farms for more than 12 to 15 years. After this period they must be replaced with new machines, a finding that has profound consequences for investors and government alike.

Silver ralph
July 13, 2015 10:36 am

Regards the 100% claim for Danish windpower, this 2005 report sets that record straight. (I doubt if it has got windier there, since 2005.
This pdf also reports that there were 54 windless days in 2002 in Denmark. So much for Denmark always being windy.
And it then goes on to report that Denmark has NEVER USED ANY OF ITS WIND POWER. Trouble is, the wind is too variable, and it overwhelms the base-load power generation (even in 2005), so they export the power to Scandinavia and Germany. If you look at the interconnector balance graph in fig 13, all of Denmark’s excess wind power is exported (at a thumping great economic loss).
Since I doubt that any new energy-sinks have been devised since 2005, I’m sure that this is still the case – Denmark gives all its wind power away to its neighbours. (Hint – variable wind can be integrated with throttleable hydro, but Denmark does not have any large mountains. So the Scandinavians are laughing.)

Silver ralph
Reply to  Silver ralph
July 13, 2015 10:45 am

Sorry, I forgot to point out that fig 6 shows in this pdf report shows that Danish load factors are actually worse than the UK. In 2005, Denmark was only averaging 20% load factor. Significantly less than this absurd Greeny claim of 100%.
You know, people who make such claims should be jailed, because this is fr@ud. If a bank said they were giving 20% interest rates, and then only averaged a 5% interest rate, the bank would be fined and the managers would be jailed.** These 100% load factor claims are no different. There are many people who will benefit financially from these fr@udulent claims, so they should be treated in the same fashion.
** On second thoughts, recent experience shows that bank managers also get away with financial muurder.

James Strom
July 13, 2015 4:24 pm

“The wind industry has regularly claimed for years that their technology is close to cost parity with coal. So I expect the withdrawal of government subsidies for wind turbines will have no impact on future wind projects.”
How droll.
Do you suppose any wind power advocate will get your point?

July 14, 2015 5:15 am

The cost comparison between coal/fossil and wind /solar is not at par or equal. The cost comparisons leave out some extra costs that should be added to the turbine /solar option. As the GERMAN experience clearly shows, 75 % of the time the renewables produce less than 20% of the nameplate capacity. So back up power has to be purchased which comes from coal or nuclear. The capital cost to build and carry 75% of additional back-up power for renewables is not included. Also as the UK and Danish experience shows, the wind turbines have a lower useful life of 12-15 years due to excessive wear and tear. Coal plants last 40-60years. The median existing US coal fired generating station was built in 1966; A third was built in the 1950’s. This extra cost to replace prematurely failing turbines is also not included. The EPA seem to have stacked the regulations for coal so much that , it is now almost impossible to build a coal fired plant in US. Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside project cost was estimated at $2 BILLION for two units in 2006. It is now estimated to be $ 1.8 BILLION for only one unit. New coal fired plants now cost about $3500/ kW. They used to be $1500-1800/kW. On shore Wind turbines run about $2500/kwh. Off shore turbines run about $ 6000/kw. Solar photovoltaic run about $4000/kw

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights