Aussie Green Power Scheme Collapse


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t JoNova – “The Australian” newspaper reports that a rise in costs, climate “fatigue”, and a rise in green tokenism has caused a collapse in demand for an Aussie green energy scheme.

Climate change fatigue, cost hits renewable GreenPower scheme

GreenPower, a scheme run by state governments in which people and businesses pay more for their power to buy non-fossil-fuel electricity, has been hit by up to a 40 per cent increase in cost as retailers pass on the rising price of large-scale renewable energy certificates.

Even before the price jump, the willingness of customers to pay more for renewable energy has ebbed in line with the political debate over climate change policies.

The scheme has gone from more than 900,000 customers in 2008 who bought about 1 per cent of total generation to just over 500,000 who bought just 0.6 per cent of all the electricity generated in 2013.

Since, sales have dropped a further 21 per cent.

A report by UTS’s Institute of Sustainable Futures for the NSW Department of Resources and Energy — which administers the scheme on behalf of all the states — said the rise in roof- top solar panels had contributed to the demise of GreenPower. “It seems that once customers have ‘done their bit’ by paying for solar PV, they no longer see the need to pay extra for GreenPower.”

Read more (paywalled):

So why is the price of green power rising?

According to the Sydney Morning Herald;

“Retailers are making it more expensive than it needs to be for the consumer,” said Richie Farrell, group manager of investor relations and strategy at Infigen Energy.

“The consumer is entering into a contract with them to buy renewable energy and they are not taking action to enter into a contract with renewable energy providers to supply the electricity, they are just entering into short-term agreements on the spot market to meet the liability the customer has imposed on them through purchasing their product.”

Mr Farrell said it all comes down to supply and demand.

“For a long time the renewable energy certificate market was oversupplied. Everyone knew there was going to be an upcoming shortfall and to avoid that shortfall retailers were required to enter into long-term contracts with people like ourselves to ensure that more renewable supply came into the market.”

Unfortunately for consumers, he said, retailers have so far refused to do that.

“They have sat on their hands and not entered into these new contracts. Basically, by our projections, by 2017-18 we will have more demand than supply for renewable energy, and as such prices increase in that scenario.”

Read more:

You can hardly blame energy retailers for being hesitant to commit to long term contracts. There simply isn’t an upside, to taking financial risks, to try to revive the already aneamic green energy market.

Australia is facing difficult economic conditions, and the Australian government is carrying a substantial and growing debt.

If the global economic slowdown worsens, Aussie government debt could very rapidly balloon to dangerous levels. In other countries, a public debt crisis was the trigger for retroactive, uncompensated cuts to green subsidies.

When individuals, businesses and governments tighten their belts, unnecessary luxuries like expensive green energy are often top of the list of costs to be cut.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 5, 2016 4:08 pm

The poor do not count ” Green Energy ” as a luxury . To the poor, It is an overwhelming burden !

Reply to  Marcus
January 5, 2016 4:22 pm

…that they cannot afford !

Reply to  Marcus
January 5, 2016 4:37 pm

Just let the disappearing middle class pick up the slack!

Reply to  Marcus
January 5, 2016 8:26 pm

Maybe that’s why the “disappearing middle class” is…. disappearing.

Reply to  Marcus
January 5, 2016 9:27 pm

Maybe that’s why world markets are slouching toward another recession.

Reply to  Marcus
January 9, 2016 9:26 pm

Yes – Big Green is very classful. There is no way the working poor nor the out of work poor are going to get on board Big Green. But don’t you think, as our governments do, that Big Green is sooooo very important that they’d subsidize the poor and working poor’s energy bill to allow them access to the Big Green gold? But they don’t. Isn’t that enough to make you go “hmmmmm”.

Reply to  dp
January 9, 2016 10:47 pm

Just wait … that’s part of Phase II if Cacklery gets elected.
She’s already dangling massive billions to the out of work coal regions.

Reply to  Marcus
January 5, 2016 5:26 pm

Prince Charles, the future king of Oz is doing his part. On a clear day you can see the toilet paper hanging out to dry. Next week the empty Champagne bottles and Caviar tins will be out in the recycle bins. One does what one can, in spite of the hardships. Some say the Royal Tampon and is thinking of recycling Camilla.

Reply to  ferdberple
January 5, 2016 11:46 pm


Alan the Brit
Reply to  ferdberple
January 6, 2016 2:33 am

I like it! 😉

Reply to  ferdberple
January 6, 2016 11:22 am

Camilla is recycled. She is a divorcee.

Reply to  Marcus
January 5, 2016 5:55 pm

Four words sprang instantly to mind-We Told You SO!

January 5, 2016 4:09 pm

No demand for that inefficient, unreliable novelty energy….none whatsoever!

Robert of Ottawa
January 5, 2016 4:16 pm

Why would anyone willingly pay more for electricity than necessary?

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 5, 2016 4:20 pm

Liberals are stupid ??

Reply to  Marcus
January 6, 2016 11:24 pm

“Liberals are stupid”
These people aren’t Liberals. Very illiberal “greens” is what they are in polite language. If you want to be less than polite, you could call them deluded far-leftist Fairfax reading stooges of the socialist parties.

Reply to  Marcus
January 6, 2016 11:25 pm

Did I forget to mention ABC watching?

Reply to  Marcus
January 7, 2016 11:36 pm

Really? I’ll go right away and try that.

Reply to  Marcus
January 7, 2016 11:37 pm

Sorry, was trying to respond to the taste test.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 5, 2016 4:22 pm

“Green” energy is double-plus good!

DD More
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 5, 2016 8:36 pm

Yes and it comes out of the wall with that shiny neat decal, not like that dull and boring regular electricity. Otherwise you probably could not tell the difference. Do you think your electric blender can feel the the double-plus good?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 5, 2016 11:09 pm

If you stick your tongue in the socket, you can taste the difference.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 5, 2016 4:40 pm

Why? To paraphrase David Thompson, in order to display “HOW VIRTUOUS AND FASHIONABLE THEY ARE”.

Reply to  PiperPaul
January 6, 2016 11:25 pm


Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 5, 2016 4:43 pm

The people who are purchasing “green” energy at a higher cost are practising what they preach and I have no objection to anybody doing this. Good luck to them.
The ones I object to are the celebrities who fly private jets to climate conferences while telling us we need to cut back on our carbon emissions. The climate scientists who claim there is a crisis yet must attend every climate jamboree in the world. The politicians who are happy to increase energy costs “because its good for the planet” and award themselves higher than inflation pay rises. The eco fascists who turn up outside fracking sites with a plethora of oil based products and proceed to destroy the environment and pollute the nearby streams and rivers with their garbage.

Reply to  TerryS
January 5, 2016 4:58 pm

‘The people who are purchasing “green” energy at a higher cost are practising what they preach and I have no objection to anybody doing this. Good luck to them.’
They get their electricity off the grid like everyone else.

Reply to  TerryS
January 5, 2016 6:11 pm

Agreed. Al Gore and his massive hypocrisy are much worse than some prat who gets solar panels to power his Tesla.
Of course, some components of those panels aren’t exactly all that green themselves, but hey, so long as it doesn’t mess up anywhere Al Gore or celebrities will actually visit, who cares?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  TerryS
January 5, 2016 6:14 pm

“The people who are purchasing “green” energy at a higher cost are practising what they preach and I have no objection to anybody doing this.”
The problem is that a substantial portion of the price which those preachy people are not paying is being subsidized by their neighbors, who have no choice in the matter. Worse than that, if the resistant neighbors decided they would not pay the extra cost to subsidize their neighbor’s folly and deducted that subsidy amount from their taxes, then men with guns would come and take the money anyway and imprison or kill the reluctant ones.

Reply to  TerryS
January 6, 2016 2:53 am

total agree

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 5, 2016 6:01 pm

Don’t it make you feel good?

Reply to  toorightmate
January 5, 2016 11:08 pm

Yes, like it feels way better after I stop hitting myself in the head with a hammer after 5 minutes…

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 5, 2016 6:22 pm

There’s a sucker born every minute, and someone born every second to take advantage of them.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 5, 2016 7:10 pm

You already do in Ottawa if Ontario One is your provider, Robert.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 6, 2016 2:22 am

The fat green blobs couldn’t be bothered pedalling bicycles attached to generators..

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
January 6, 2016 7:48 pm

Robert of Ottawa,
Ontario has FIT- Contracts, Yieldcos and cap-and-trade. So what’s next for Ontario?

January 5, 2016 4:30 pm

“The scheme has gone from more than 900,000 customers in 2008 who bought about 1 per cent of total generation to just over 500,000 who bought just 0.6 per cent of all the electricity generated in 2013”
I believe, properly structured, this could be turned into a very telling analysis of the incidence of masochism in contemporary Australian society. Who in their right mind would deliberately pay more for energy than they needed to? It makes no economic sense.
It reminds me of the early Christian self-flagellists doing penance for sins unknown. “Bring out your dead!”

Reply to  Bartleby
January 5, 2016 5:27 pm

I thought the bring-out-yer-dead thing referred to the Bubonic Plague, not doing penance.

DD More
Reply to  PiperPaul
January 5, 2016 8:43 pm

The flagellist were during the Bubonic Plague. Supposedly whipping your self warded off the plague and villages were saved. Did have to pay them off with large doses of wine and other adult beverages for the act though.

Reply to  PiperPaul
January 6, 2016 8:32 pm

Nowadays we pay them off with Carbon Credits, but it’s exactly the same idea…

Reply to  Bartleby
January 5, 2016 11:37 pm

Brainwashed millennials. Plenty of them. Very hipster.

Steve from Rockwood
January 5, 2016 4:35 pm

I’m not sure why, but I love these stories.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
January 5, 2016 4:41 pm

For me, it’s like watching natural selection in action.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Bartleby
January 5, 2016 5:33 pm

As per Remedial Economics .001.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
January 5, 2016 4:42 pm

Someone had to serve as a bad example.

Patrick MJD
January 5, 2016 4:38 pm

With industry and jobs going offshore, no-one here (Australia) is too bothered about climate change and green energy…other than those involved in the scam. It’s been raining here in Sydney for two days straight, with another day to go. it’s not much more than 22c…in SUMMER!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 5, 2016 5:22 pm

Move to Newcastle.. but buy a canoe first !!!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  AndyG55
January 5, 2016 10:36 pm

I would have to learn how to speak Jordy!

Reply to  AndyG55
January 5, 2016 10:58 pm

”move to Newcastle….but buy a canoe first That will haul tonnes of coal to Newcastle. ””

Reply to  AndyG55
January 6, 2016 12:51 am

Is that Newcastle-upon-Tyne or the real one in NSW?

Reply to  AndyG55
January 6, 2016 1:59 am

>>Is that Newcastle-upon-Tyne or the real one in NSW?
Since there were never any castles in Oz, it can hardly be the ‘real one’. 😉

Reply to  AndyG55
January 6, 2016 3:16 pm

As I gaed doon tae Wilson Toon
Ah met wee Geordie Scobie,
Says he tae me ‘Could ye gang a hauf?
Says I ‘Man, that’s my hobby’

Aert Driessen
Reply to  AndyG55
January 6, 2016 4:06 pm

Professor Flannery probably has one for sale at a discount seeing he thinks that it will never rain again.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 5, 2016 6:15 pm

Yes Patrick but those “involved” in the scam are making a packet billing you and I.
Turnbul and his well trained monkey (Hunt) are again funding windmills after Abbott pulled the “plug on the scam. Hunt flagged last week how he and the government are committed to buying overseas carbon permits with our taxes to keep the lights here, from highly likely country who burn our coal.
Which investment bank will do the convayancing I wonder!
Yes, nobody’s paying any attention and there in “lies” the problem!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Leigh
January 5, 2016 10:50 pm

Turnbull and his mates at MacQuarrie bank. Turnbull will be a disaster for Australia.

Reply to  Leigh
January 6, 2016 1:17 am

That would be “billing you and me…”

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 5, 2016 8:02 pm

This unseasonal summer drenching has been sponsored by ……… EL NINO.
Now, a word from our sponsor “Be Green or watch out!”

Patrick MJD
January 5, 2016 4:41 pm

No-one here in Australia is too bothered about climate change and “green energy”, we are more focused on finding work with jobs and industry being sent offshore! 2016 is going to be a tough start to a new year for many in the “lucky” country.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 6, 2016 3:31 pm

“we are more focused on finding work ”
Then you damn well better be bothered by the “green energy” hoax, and what it will do to your economy if coal power is obliterated by them Greens.

Reply to  brians356
January 6, 2016 6:46 pm

EU energy, Dec.15, 2015
‘Why the Paris Climate deal is a win for energy companies’
The winners are the renewable energy companies and the losers are fossil fuel companies/oil and coal.

Reply to  Barbara
January 6, 2016 7:31 pm

Barbara commented: “…‘Why the Paris Climate deal is a win for energy companies’…”
What a load of carp, lipstick on a pig, and all other trite phrases used to describe media spin. Paris was a non deal. Nothing. A bunch of bureaucrats that couldn’t agree on anything meaningful to guarantee their “promises”. Anyone, including the energy companies, that believed any verbiage from that ‘meeting’ is delusional. It was all political talk with no constituents.

Reply to  markl
January 6, 2016 9:45 pm

Perhaps it is lipstick on a pig, but increasingly I see money institutional money flowing into green energy.
The houses are downright giddy over the 5 year extension and they are going ugly early.
The science IS settled because it never was about the science for more than the time it took to get attention.
The significance of Paris is not the failures of this or that climate tax, but the general tone of full speed ahead for microgrids (decentralization), alternative energy and wheeeeeeeee (i put on my little baseball cap with the twirling blade) rebates for all who play.
Remember it was a REPUBLICAN congress that passed the omnibus bill.
Even if a GOP president gets elected, I seriously doubt you’ll see a smackdown of the trend.
The GOP Congress has their hand in the till.
If you woke up tomorrow and POTUS gave a speech that said “i was just pulling your leg about the CAGW thing”, we would still be marching towards the new energy frontier.
However, IF the equity markets fall apart and people start scampering for exit door, you will see a tightening of the giveaway programs.
Phase II has begun in earnest.

January 5, 2016 4:42 pm

Love the picture up top….” The Black Hole of Green Energy ” …but, you should have included a few million crosses for all the women and children that have ” Died for the Green Cause ” !! IMHO…

Reply to  Marcus
January 5, 2016 4:52 pm

The windmills that can allegedly generate reliable power are essentially 3-armed crucifixes to the green pseudo-religion. They can represent the few million crosses swirling down that black hole.

January 5, 2016 4:45 pm

In some ways you could replace the term “Green Power” with “Central Planning”. I guess a Five Year Plan is missing.

January 5, 2016 5:10 pm

I note that Weather Bell states that the BoM has designated 2015 as the 5th warmest year for Australia. I have been watching temps worldwide for over a year now on a multi daily basis. South America had nothing exceptional to show in warmer temps, neither did Africa. It is very hard to understand the warmest year claim from NOAA/GISS for the year 2015. Especially as the upper NH experienced an intense cold spell which started in early October across all of Siberia before it migrated to affect most of the upper NH with temps on average that were 20F below average. What region of the planet was significantly warmer to offset that 10 week period of intense cold?

charles nelson
Reply to  goldminor
January 5, 2016 5:24 pm

I think you’ll find that a slice of the Canadian Arctic went up to minus 15˚C for a couple of months when ‘normally’ it should have been at minus 30˚C!!!

Reply to  goldminor
January 5, 2016 5:27 pm

On a “average to end of November” basis for all years,
UAH for Australia is in 13th place.
Waiting for Roy to post the full set of numbers so I can get Dec for Australia.
In both UAH and RSS Global, 2015 can in 3rd place.

January 5, 2016 5:28 pm

I googled on renewable energy failures and got “About 1,590,000 results”. Here are the titles of the first ten:

Obama-backed green energy failures leave taxpayers with $2.2 …
Tom Friedman Confused by Germany’s Green Energy Failure …
What has gone wrong with Germany’s energy policy – The Economist
Green Energy Bust in Germany | Dissent Magazine
President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
GERMANY: Renewable Energy Policy “Complete Failure”… Bring …
Solar Energy Delivers Too Little Bang For Billions Invested – Forbes
Barriers to Renewable Energy Technologies
Germany’s Solar Failure | The Resilient Earth
Ontario to follow Germany in renewable failure | Energy Probe

Google-ing for renewable energy failure spain got about 2,970,000 hits.
Most of the first page hits were older than a year.
Google-ing for renewable energy failure britain got about 9,060,000 hits.
Most of the first page hits were recent.
Anybody who thinks it’s a good idea to push us onto renewable energy is living in cloud cuckoo land. There’s so much evidence …

Reply to  commieBob
January 6, 2016 2:06 pm

I think the worst curse you can use on a “renewables” fetishist is that you hope someone puts a windmill in their backyard.
Then they can learn first hand just how horrible those things are.

January 5, 2016 5:28 pm

Of course if stopping fossil fuels is really what is required, common sense would be to make those more expensive, and the green or clean alternatives cheaper.

Reply to  Peter
January 5, 2016 5:36 pm

Of course if stopping fossil fuels is really what is required
make it illegal. like drugs or gambling or crime. that’s the ticket. that will stomp fossil fuel use out over-night. death sentence for anyone using fossil fuels. after all, obama tells us it is the greatest threat. greater than IS. so for sure we should nuke anyone using fossil fuels back to the stone age.

Reply to  ferdberple
January 5, 2016 6:02 pm

You haven’t heard? Guns are now the US’s biggest problem according to Obama. As with climate, they totally have data on their side:
Pretty soon, those rates are going to hockey stick, freddie. Have to do something NOW.

Reply to  Peter
January 6, 2016 2:17 pm

But it’s the other way around. Fossil fuels are reliable and cheap, “renewables” are inefficient, intermittent, and expensive. Most windfarms are built to farm government subsidies, not actually produce any electricity.
The Danes went wind crazy and now pay the highest electric bills in Europe.

January 5, 2016 5:38 pm

I am so sick of this, restart coal plants in Oz and the EU, supply the people to heat their homes with coal ( as they have for centuries) and kick these greens to kingdom come. They should be prosecuted and jailed!!

Retired Kit P
Reply to  asybot
January 5, 2016 6:13 pm

Heating homes with coal, wood, or cowpaties produces lots of pollutants. Burn it it power plants with scrubbers and heat the the homes with electricity. That is how to improve air quality in cities.
Lots of things have been done for centuries. I am thinking aysbot did not have a coal furnace in his house growing up.

Michael Jankowski
January 5, 2016 5:42 pm

[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad, pathetic life. -mod]

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
January 5, 2016 9:15 pm

Michael Jankowski
January 5, 2016 at 5:42 pm
But just imagine all of the green jobs that were created!
If you want to see the Green jobs, that’s just what you have to do- imagine them

Retired Kit P
January 5, 2016 5:47 pm

About 15 years my company sent me to a ‘GreenPower’ conference in Portland, Or. It was about marketing not producing power. Apparently, the target consumer is liberal arts majors with multiple degrees.
The misconception that liberal have is that making electricity has significant environmental impact. It does not.

Lewis P Buckingham
January 5, 2016 5:54 pm

The retail solar power sector are switching to rural areas and putting in panels at reduced prices with the promise that when the subsidies on grid input from them go to zero, they will able to buy a Tesla battery and cut themselves from the grid.
I can see a new ‘Pink Batts’ scandal coming up.
Speaking to one who has done this already and believed, the problems are evident.
1] Living in a rural bushfire area spraying water on banks of solar collectors in full sun could lead to shorts and a fire risk. Roof fires mean no water collection to tanks and no home.There needs to be safetys mandated for these installations.
2] Hanging Teslas on rural buildings just adds to the fire risk. It would be better to construct a fire resistant shed and cable the power into the dwelling.This needs legislation.
Too many hover boards and banks of lithium batteries have burned in aircraft to roll these large lithium batteries out on our homes.
3] The pitch is that the batteries will be affordable, so the consumer trusts and buys the solar panels.
There is no clear indication these batteries will be safe, yet alone affordable compared to grid power.A standard contract for solar supply should be drawn up so that any such claim has to be documented and if not forthcoming, actionable under consumer protection legislation.

Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
January 5, 2016 11:46 pm

Like with other utilities, water and sewer, if your property is serviceable then the property should be levied for having the service available. Nobody in OZ can avoid paying rates for water and sewer whether the block is vacant or built upon, you pay … should be the same for the electrical grid, poles and wires come by your property, you pay for the privilege irrespective of whether you have a diesel generator, solar panels, windmill or batteries. You feed-in to the grid, you pay double!

4 Eyes
Reply to  Streetcred
January 6, 2016 2:43 am

I tried that argument on my local conservative federal MP – no response. Perhaps a few others could try on theirs.

Reply to  Streetcred
January 6, 2016 2:57 am

Do coal fired plants pay for access to the grid? Serious question!

Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2016 3:38 pm

LOL … Get serious, the coal fired generators are the backbone of why the grid is there.

Reply to  Streetcred
January 6, 2016 6:45 am

why the hell should we pay for a service we dont use/connect to..or want?
I dont have sewer pipes handy
I have paid for septic and will continue to use it regardless
so why should I forgo a paid for safe pay for massive thousands connections and replumbing when its NOT wanted or required.
the utilities dont have to add joins/connection points etc if I chose NOT to avail myself and they have to run by the property regardless.
pay for a service we dont use?
thats as sane as paying for cable would be -seeing as I dont have a TV but the service is available

Reply to  ozspeaksup
January 6, 2016 3:55 pm

LOL, not too smart, eh? … if the public utility services runs past your suburban property and you don’t use them, you are still paying for the privilege whether you like it or not … in fact, save for being a vacant lot, you will not be allowed to use septic tanks. Check your rates bill from the Council or the Council owned utility company, if the service runs past your property in suburbia you will pay for it. If it weren’t for the extremely excessive solar ‘feed-in’ rates (in Qld 44c/kWH compared to the retail rate of 27c/kWH) that the socialists saddled us with we wouldn’t be having this discussion because you would not be subsidy farming like the warmist academics and assorted hangers on. Why don’t you get your unsubsidised tesla batteries and get off the grid today? The utility services for power generation have been in existence long before you as a public service. It is nothing like paying for a commercial TV cable service that you don’t use.

Reply to  Streetcred
January 6, 2016 5:11 pm

So streetcred, its alright for big business ie coal to have free access, but I should pay because Im a small provider who is actively lwering peak demand eith my solar setup? Seems fair, in a Liberalworld!

Reply to  Greg
January 6, 2016 10:46 pm

Ah so you’re just another one with the snout in the subsidy trough. LOL, take away the poles and wire and what will you do with your excess unstable generation? Your very generous feed-in tariff should be removed for another reason that the unstable generation from you costs everybody else for the infrastructure upgrades need to cope with rapid changes in supply. We don’t need more leeches in the system … I object strongly to paying your excessive feed-in tariff. Power stations, be they coal, gas , whatever, were all previously owned by a single quango of each of the State governments who provided the network and the power generation to the public. Nothing wrong with coal fired power stations by the way … they generate less pollution than the toxic waste from the manufacture of your subsidised solar panels.

Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
January 6, 2016 2:21 pm

“This is what a melted Tesla looks like.”
Another Tesla burst into flames in Norway recently.

January 5, 2016 5:59 pm

But we’ll always have Paris….right? :p

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Aphan
January 5, 2016 9:21 pm

Here’s looking at you, Kid.

January 5, 2016 6:12 pm

Green “sustainable” energy meets unsustainable taxpayer subsidies. Green energy will do fine once it can stand on its own without subsidies, and provide cheaper and more reliable power than fossil fuels. Until then…

Steve in SC
January 5, 2016 6:42 pm

TO paraphrase “Fools and their money are soon parted.”

January 5, 2016 7:17 pm

Climate fatigue, ha ha ha, from flogging a dead parrot ?

January 5, 2016 7:20 pm
January 5, 2016 7:32 pm

Reality strikes again. Everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die. Reports such as this will only multiply and the people haters will move on to a new bogeyman to quench their thirst for destroying humanity while they continue their own lifestyles unabated. The halls of the UN must be ringing with teeth gnashing and cries of “oh the humanity” as control of wealth redistribution slips from their grasp. I love a story with a happy ending.

January 5, 2016 7:44 pm

““The Australian” newspaper reports that a rise in costs, climate “fatigue”, and a rise in green tokenism has caused a collapse in demand for an Aussie green energy scheme.”
I can only think of Luther nailing his Ninety Five Theses critical of Indulgences to the door of the Wittenberg Church….

January 5, 2016 8:07 pm

What I learned Over the Holidays
The ages of late teens to early 30s in the US don’t really believe in CAGW. Its a nice idea and all that but deep down they know the science is bad. They do however feel that a bold new energy future is their legacy.
They are proud of electing a president that passed health care and are proud that this president has embraced alternative lifestyles. The down and dirty of what they think is that it is better to spend the money on a new energy future than fighting wars in far away deserts over things like oil.
I talked to many youngins and while it is only a small subset of the population, my contacts were from mostly well to do families with lots of influence in the crazy world of politics.
I’m also more convinced than ever that the politics of things is attached to the backlash effect. Whatever Obama is identified with with will likely create a backlash of its own.
So it goes.

January 5, 2016 8:35 pm

“Mr Farrell said it all comes down to supply and demand.”…
Wow…. supply and demand… what a concept that is COMPLETELY lost on clueless Leftists…
If you offer a more EXPENSIVE product that’s indistinguishable from a cheaper supplier of the same good, guess what….the demand for the expensive product falls… and the lower the price for the expensive product becomes, the higher the price the expensive product needs to become to cover fixed overhead expenses….
in the real world, such a situation ends in bankruptcy…. In the unicorn-rainbow world of Leftists, it merely means governments must waste even more taxpayer money to keep the “green” energy companies afloat…
Wow… imagine that…
Germany has already learned the concept of supply and demand for their expensive and unwanted wind/solar energy fiasco and are now building about 100 new coal-fired plants to fix the problem of their own making….
CAGW is entering the beginning of its demise. People just are not believing the BS anymore, and are NOT willing to pay higher electricity prices for “green” energy, which decrease their competitive edge, lowers living standards and destroys their economies….

Patrick in Adelaide
January 5, 2016 11:03 pm

South Oz. First they sold our public utilities (the ones we, the public, owned) to bail out state debt from mismanagement. Then those private power generation companies, in agreement with the state government progressively lifted power rates – apparently this is competition which drives prices down. Ha! Now we have more “renewable” “green” energy being pushed on us with further rate increases to happen. This on top of record unemployment (8.2%) plus underemployment leading to a 20% rate. It doesn’t matter what side of politics they hail from – we’re screwed either way.

Reply to  Patrick in Adelaide
January 5, 2016 11:53 pm

Patrick … SA is the cradle of wind power in OZ, it is bloody expensive … the debt came from years of socialist policies that encouraged the wind power providers with huge subsidies, that is why your power is the most expensive in Oz. The expensive power has driven most manufacturing businesses and others out of the State, that is why SA has the highest levels of unemployment in OZ with no upside to it. It does matter what side of politics is in … but the medicine for SA is more than what they can now afford … yes you are screwed but blame it on the sub-intelligence of the people that voted in socialists, they’ve now run out of other people’s money.

January 5, 2016 11:38 pm

Lets hope that these scoundrels, who have participated in brain washing the public entirely in order to line their own pockets, will meet their just deserts.
Perhaps they are finding that once the public start getting hit in their pockets, their eyes are opened so that green isn’t so attractive any more. Rip the public off even more and these scoundrels may find that the whole green thing wasn’t such a good idea.
But still watch Agenda 21. See my blog.

Ivor Ward
January 6, 2016 1:46 am

But surely, saving the planet is a good thing. Leonardo just sent a message from his super yacht in St. Barts. Madonna says so from her Learjet, hired to take her 120 miles. John Travolta says so from one of his 7 private airliners, Bonio says so from his accountants where he is signing off the next tax avoidance scheme for the super rich. Suzuki, Grantham, Al Gore, they all say so as they accumulate more money each minute than most of us earn by hard graft in a lifetime. Vivienne Westwood says so as she farms out her products to child labour in the far East, Cameron says so as his father in law collects a thousand a week from wind subsidies. What is wrong with you people? How can you argue against such admired and influential people?

Reply to  Ivor Ward
January 6, 2016 3:47 am

Well said!

Reply to  Ivor Ward
January 6, 2016 12:58 pm

Treble ++!
Milli-query: wasn’t Bonio some sort of dog’s breakfast?
Auto, admiring a veritable declension of hypocrisy!

January 6, 2016 2:37 am

The biggest mistake in my life was coming back to Australia. I had 11 years of a wonderful life in China. Broadband, low electricity costs, no tax, no Turnbull. I’m outa here in 6 weeks time and heading back to China. I will take a hit to the hip pocket but I don’t care. Its all about lifestyle. I’ll make my money back in a short time. See ya Australia. Go F@ck yourself

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Alex
January 6, 2016 3:16 am

You have a point….

January 6, 2016 4:52 am

“You call that government debt” (Australia = $725B) … “Now this is government debt” (Canada = $1200B)

January 6, 2016 5:13 am

The thing to remember about the renewable industry , is that its a industry what they sell makes difference to the fact that their major concern is making money.

January 6, 2016 5:52 am
I have worked in the energy industry for much of my career.
When challenged on this question by green fanatics, I explain that that fossil fuels keep their families from freezing and starving to death.
Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.
A few facts:
Wind Power is what warmists typically embrace – trillions of dollars have been squandered on worthless grid-connected wind power schemes that require life-of-project subsidies and drive up energy costs.
Some background on grid-connected wind power schemes:
The Capacity Factor of wind power is typically a bit over 20%, but that is NOT the relevant factor.
The real truth is told by the Substitution Capacity, which is dropping to as low as 4% in Germany – that is the amount of conventional generation that can be permanently retired when wind power is installed into the grid.
The E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005 is an informative document:
(apparently no longer available from E.ON Netz website).
Figure 6 says Wind Power is too intermittent (and needs almost 100% spinning backup);
Figure 7 says it just gets worse and worse the more Wind Power you add to the grid (see Substitution Capacity dropping from 8% to 4%).
Same story applies to grid-connected Solar Power (both in the absence of a “Super-Battery”).
This was all obvious to us decades ago – we published similar conclusions in 2002.
Trillions of dollars have been wasted globally on green energy that is not green and produces little useful energy.
Today’s comment:
The following numbers are from the 2015 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, for the year 2014:
Global Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel is 86% Fossil Fuel (Oil, Coal and Natural Gas),
4% Nuclear,
7% Hydro,
and 2% Renewables.
That 2% for Renewables is vastly exaggerated, and would be less than 1% if intermittent wind and solar power were not forced into the grid ahead of cheaper and more reliable conventional power.
This is not news – we have known this energy reality for decades. As we published in 2002.
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
We also write in the same article, prior to recognition that the current ~20 year “Pause” was already underway:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
I (we) now think global cooling will commence after the current El Nino runs its course, prior to 2020 and possibly as soon as 2H2017. Bundle up!
Regards to all, Allan

Reply to  Allan MacRae
January 6, 2016 6:24 am
A few more thoughts below: Climate heresy now, but conventional wisdom in 10-20 years.
Regards, Allan 🙂
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015

Reply to  Allan MacRae
January 6, 2016 1:05 pm

Many thanks.
Can I clarify, for passing liberals [Here, rarer than rocking horse 5h!t, but never mind]:
You write: –
“I (we) now think global cooling will commence after the current El Nino runs its course, prior to 2020 and possibly as soon as 2H2017. Bundle up!”
Clarification – this could be the latter part of next year.
Auto, appreciating your Observations and Conclusions.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  Allan MacRae
January 6, 2016 9:53 am

I suspect that Allen’s experience in the energy industry includes zero experience in the power industry. It is not practical to store electricity so location is very important. So if Calgary has good wind resources, it might make sense to replace fossil generation and sell oil and natural gas to the US.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
January 6, 2016 11:01 am

It is not practical to store electricity so location is very important.

Is the Tesla Powerwall a failure ?

Reply to  Knute
January 6, 2016 11:51 am

Knute commented: …”Is the Tesla Powerwall a failure ?…”
Yes from a practical perspective since very few can afford the PV panels + the battery(ies). But it’s much like the Tesla car……a status symbol with limited usefulness available only to the wealthy who can afford it. Although the car does have many redeeming features beyond being gas free that are not available in IC cars. And no from a business perspective because both are products born out of subsidies, not competition or need so technically they can’t fail.

Reply to  markl
January 6, 2016 12:12 pm

Thanks Mark
So technically they work to store energy, right ?
It’s just a matter of who pays for them.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
January 6, 2016 3:36 pm

Retired Kit P – your comments are nonsense.
Suggest you read the E,On Netz Wind Report 2005 – see Fig. 6 & 7.

January 6, 2016 6:07 am

This is really, really easy instead of schemes to make “green” energy expensive why not schemes to make it cheap?

Reply to  bleakhouses
January 6, 2016 6:29 am

Making green energy cheap is easier said than done.
It is much easier to lie about it – to say green energy is “free”, that it will create many jobs, and that it will improve the environment. None of these lies have any validity for current green energy schemes.
I think there is some potential for some forms of green energy, but current grid-connected wind and solar power schemes are uneconomic and counterproductive.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
January 6, 2016 6:57 pm

EU energy, July 10, 2015
‘The Yieldco: the solar revolution meets Wall Street’
There is big money to be made in the Yieldco market in solar and wind projects.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
January 7, 2016 5:05 am

Hi Barbara,
You probably know this, since it is a typical situation:
In my province of Alberta, intermittent grid–connected wind power is paid 20 cents per KWh, even when there is no demand for that wind power whereas reliable fossil-fueled power is paid about 5 cents per KWh.
Almost 100% fossil-fueled backup of wind power is required because the wind does not blow all the time.
In fact, when there is no demand the wind power is worth nothing, unless it can bee sold (usually at a great loss) to other venues where there is demand.
What’s the solution?
Then: Don’t build the wind power in the first place.
Now: Drop the subsidies and let the wind power companies sort it out for themselves.
Regards, Allan

January 6, 2016 7:29 am

Australians could have low electricity prices from competitive bid, utility scale solar but they were slow to pick up on the concept and the tech/cost advantages. Instead they went with rooftop and idiotic solar CSP demonstration projects. Oh well, it seems to be a common green populist mistake translated onto uncompetitive energy policy choices. They could have built 100 nuclear scale solar projects by now with declining costs all along the way.

Reply to  Resourceguy
January 6, 2016 7:03 pm

You mean like the NBN?

R. de Haan
January 6, 2016 8:19 am

Bad news, just planned to charge my 90Kw/h Tesla Battery at home. I am disappointed.

Steven F
January 6, 2016 9:44 pm

Australia utilities offer two power options. fissile fuel electricity (mostly coal) or renewable electricity. Regardless of which option is chosen Australians are paying the some of the highest electricity rate in the world.
Electricity rates were high even before the carbon tax was implemented and then later canceled. Why are rates so high? Simple, utilities projected electricity demand was about to surge causing power shortages. The government then allowed utilities to raise there rates to pay for the grid updates. Unfortunately it appears that not all that money is being used to upgrade the grid.
The end result of these high cost is that Australians are not buying the utility’s green power or increasingly even the the dirty coal power. Instead they are spending money on the lowest cost energy they can get. That is rooftop solar PV. in 2008 there was basically no rooftop PV in Australia. Today there is over 4000MW of PV on homes. and the total installed PV capacity is growing rapidly as more homes and businesses add more and more solar . The end result of all this is that for the first time in Australian history electricity demand is dropping with no end in site.

January 7, 2016 12:11 am

Perhaps Mr Farrall of Infigen ( Infigen, the spinoff from the infamously bankrupt Babcock and Brown) could also enlighten readers about his part in making a claim concerning a highly reputable acoustic engineer’s report about turbine noise from Infigen’s wind farm near Canberra.

%d bloggers like this: