Aussie Revolution: Mounting High Level Attacks Against Renewable Energy

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Leading Australian Politicians and economists are piling in against renewable political favouritism, comparing renewables to the Bernie Madoff and Enron scandals. The following from former Prime Minister Tony Abbott;

Tony Abbott calls for climate pushback as CET goes cold

8:55AM October 10, 2017

SIMON BENSON

Tony Abbott has doubled down on his scepticism of climate change science, reigniting a decade-old debate in a major speech in London after the Turnbull government moved yesterday to rule out proceeding with a clean ­energy target proposed by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel.

The former prime minister has labelled the likely backdown on a CET a “belated” gesture and warned that the Coalition is courting a “political death wish” if it fails to put cost of living and protection of jobs ahead of reducing emissions.

In a speech delivered early today that will further test the political fault lines over ­energy policy in the Coalition party room, Mr Abbott resurrected his 2009 declaration that the so-called settled science on climate change was “absolute crap” and claimed that any effort Australia made to reduce emissions would be futile in a global context.

In his most controversial speech on climate change since the 2009 speech to a country Victorian gathering, Mr Abbott told London’s centre-right Global Warming Policy Forum that climate-change policies had done more harm than climate change itself, suggesting global warming was “probably doing good; or at least, more good than harm”.

“Belatedly, the government is now suggesting that there might not be a new CET after all,” Mr Abbott said. “There must not be — and the government still needs to deal with what’s yet to come under the existing target.

“At last year’s election, the government chose not to campaign on power prices even though Labor was promising a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target, requiring a $50 billion overbuild of wind farms, and a 45 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, requiring a new carbon tax.

After a net gain of 25 seats at the previous two elections, when we had campaigned on power prices, we had a net loss of 14 when we didn’t. And subsequent events have made the politics of power once more the central battleground between and within the two main parties.”

Read more (paywalled): http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/tony-abbott-calls-for-climate-pushback-as-cet-goes-cold/news-story/6568708f050e62c8d33b2190b7e7fbd7

This comes on top of a MSM story a few days ago by noted economist Judith Sloan, comparing renewables to the Bernie Madoff and Enron scandals;

Taxpayer support for renewable energy simply cannot be justified

12:00AM October 7, 2017

JUDITH SLOAN

Move over, Ponzi; forget Bernie Madoff; ignore Enron; and dismiss collateralised debt obligations ­associated with subprime mort­gages. Without a doubt, the biggest scam perpetrated against taxpayers and consumers is ­renewable energy.

And if you think this scam is just an Australian phenomenon, think again. With very few exceptions, governments all over the world have fallen into the trap of paying renewable energy scam­mers on the basis that it is neces­sary, at least politically, to be seen to be doing something about ­climate change.

But let’s take the Australian figures as an example of the vast sums of moneys being redistributed from ordinary consumers and taxpayers to the renewable energy rent-seekers. It is estimated that more than $2 billion a year is handed over to renewable energy operators by virtue of the operation of the renewable energy target and the associated renewable energy certificates.

But this is just the start. The Australian Renewable ­Energy Agency shovels out hundreds of millions of dollars annually to subsidise renewable energy companies, many of which are overseas-owned. Then there is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which was given $10bn in equity by the Gillard Labor govern­ment to lend or grant money to renewable energy companies. Evidently the long-suffering taxpayer might receive a return on this ­“investment”, but I wouldn’t suggest you hold your breath.

Consider what has happened in Germany. In a fit of panicked madness, Chancellor Angela Merkel decided the country’s nuclear power plants should be shut down, to be replaced with renewable ­energy. The plan is that by 2050, between 80 per cent and 95 per cent of electricity will be generated by renewables. The target for 2030 is 50 per cent — the same as our Labor Party’s target for Australia.

The last nuclear power plant is due to close in 2022 but Energie­wende, the name of the plan to transition electricity generation, has hit serious hurdles, not least the extraordinary cost of the ­investment in renewables, now ­totalling about €650bn ($980bn).

And here’s another strange ­feature: renewable energy producers in Germany are paid more than €1bn a year not to produce because the stability of the system can be imperilled if there is too much ­renewable energy at certain times. It’s so European to pay an outfit not to do something — just think farmers.

Then there is the issue of intermittency that plagues renewable energy around the world, ­including in Germany. Late last year, the wind simply didn’t blow for several days and a thick fog surrounded many parts of the country. The output from renewables fell to just 4 per cent of total ­demand. Battery back-up is of little use in this scenario.

As the Australian government contemplates where to go next in terms of energy policy, the best ­approach involves acknowledging that enough is enough when it comes to subsidising renewable energy. The sector has been showered with favours, including volumetric guarantees courtesy of the RET. It is time it stood on its own two feet without any preferential treatment or financial assistance.

Read more (paywalled): http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/taxpayer-support-for-renewable-energy-simply-cannot-be-justified/news-story/1197160afff32ccfb1bf55ea39129820

Lets not forget the announcement a few days ago by the Australian Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, that renewables would not “require” subsidies in the future.

It remains to be seen how much of this rising opposition to renewables will be translated into action, but with skyrocketing power prices being blamed for a damaging slump in consumer spending, and with record levels of Aussie household debt, something has to give.

Thanks to wild claims by renewables advocates of falling costs, renewable mandates and subsidies are a soft target, out of a shrinking field of increasingly desperate political options to restore the ailing Australian economy.

Update (EW): h/t Another Ian – full transcript of Tony Abbott’s speech to the GWPF here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
206 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick MJD
October 9, 2017 9:06 pm

The heads of broadcasters on the ABC are exploding. It’s incredibly funny to watch them slate Abbott.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 10, 2017 2:47 am

Problem is though, the law of unintended consequences. Our gas and electrickery prices are going through the roof but thanks to little miracles, renewable energy would cost far more and we’d only get brown-outs in return.
So lucky me, my ‘puter screen is still bright enough to see. I wonder how the Germans email each other..?

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
October 10, 2017 2:03 pm

You underestimate German engineering to overcome any sh*t. Because of that we had no single blackout.
The trick is: We have a full backoff with coal plants…
Unfortunately this rises our CO2 output… especially if the last nuclear plants will be closed…
The empress has no clothes – and nobody sees it.

LdB
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
October 10, 2017 7:05 pm

I noticed and suspected that when I was looking at the numbers for last 2 years. So the question I had is how does Germany meet it’s 2020 and 2022 deadlines to shut coal power stations down? Is there some plan to extend the deadlines?

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
October 10, 2017 8:45 pm

The Germans rely heavily on Polish power – which is coal power

ColA
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 10, 2017 2:49 pm

You notice Hannan didn’t bother checking – no – actually would not show the official tidal records for Sydney
“The mean sea level trend is 0.65 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.10 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1886 to 2010 which is equivalent to a change of 0.21 feet in 100 years.”
TONY WAS RIGHT, who’s peddling who is misleading who??
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=680-140

Tom Halla
October 9, 2017 9:23 pm

It is hard to guess when the renewable energy (whatever, most of the terms I could use to describe it would put this into moderation) will finally go away, and the vast majority of politicians who supported it act as if they never had anything to do with that puppy.

Nigel S
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 10, 2017 12:17 am

Yes, all heroic members of the Resistance like France after WW2 (while hiding the money like a ‘Shocked’ Captain Renault or our own dear Tim Yeo).

Griff
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 10, 2017 2:15 am

It isn’t going anywhere Tom… it is increasing year on year… costs for solar and batteries and wind turbines still dropping.

Dipchip
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 5:03 am

Costs are going down while prices are going up; that makes sense. Who pockets the differential?

Ian W
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 5:30 am

Griff, it isn’t the up-front capital cost; it is the totally unusable nature of the power generated from diffuse and intermittent sources. Because of that intermittent supply, base load must be maintained by dispatchable reliable power from fossil fueled generation much of which runs inefficiently on standby to be able to supply power when the renewables cannot. So the consumer is paying twice: first for the inefficient subsidy farms, and second, for the reliable power that keeps the brownouts away. This extra cost is particularly onerous on those in energy poverty who are funding the millions in subsidies and feed in tariffs for the well off. Sounds just the kind of financial ‘scheme’ you would support.

toorightmate
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 6:03 am

Griff,
We would be lost without you.
You provide more entertainment than could a skilled cartoonist.
Now let me see you put your hand on your heart and say that NPV of wind or solar power is better than coal or gas power ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD (ie no subsidies for renewables and no penalties for coal/gas generated power).
Then again put your hand on your heart and tell me that CO2 has had or will ever have a measurable effect on the climate of planet Earth.
The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 6:15 am

“Griff, it isn’t the up-front capital cost; it is the totally unusable nature of the power generated from diffuse and intermittent sources.”
And the high maintenance cost, and the year-by-year diminishing efficiency (of solar), and the shorter-than-projected lifespans, and the overstated “nameplate” claims, and the diminishing supply of the best (windiest, sunniest) locations, and the cost abroad of toxic production methods, etc.

Edwin
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 6:27 am

Is the plan by the CAGW crowd to eliminate a great number of users so there is less demand for electricity? Oh, wait even the elite that would be left will be required to drive plug-in electric cars. I have no problem with renewables. My problem is the hypocrisy of those pushing renewables. Hydroelectric presently make up a big percentage, yet the same folks pushing wind and solar are also pushing to do away with hydroelectric dams. Years ago when I was on the board of the largest chapter of one of the country’s largest environmental group if someone wanted to put up a tall tower the paid national leadership would scream about how many birds and bats the one tower would kill. Today there is near silence as USFWS issued wind turbine farms “take permits” to kill tens of thousands of birds and bats per year. Remember it was only a short time ago we brought many raptor species back from the brink. How is a country like Germany going to meet its renewable goals? Think about just the space required. Where do they plan to put all the solar panels, wind farms, battery storage, etc? How much land are they going to take out of other forms of productions and housing? Are they going to chopped down forest, use parks? Of course at least in the short term we have pretty good idea that they will use other countries’ electrical production to stave off their brown and blackouts. If the other countries are smart they would charge Germany twice the price.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 6:45 am

60 years of Global Warming, Griff. I can’t tell the weather outside from the early 70’s. If this is a joke, it isn’t very funny. Poverty kills, Griff, and renewables cause poverty. Ergo, renewables kill!
Your viewpoint is clouded by Socialist nonsense. A religion that has also killed. Many millions but apparently not satisfied.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 7:12 am

Going from 20 times the cost to only 18 times the cost.
Be still my beating heart.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 8:31 am

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
but, then again he was referring to religion…

Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 8:57 am

“giffiepooed October 10, 2017 at 2:15 am
It isn’t going anywhere Tom… it is increasing year on year… costs for solar and batteries and wind turbines still dropping. ”

Blatant falsehood!

As I, (Paul Homewood), noted last week, the GWPF has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about a highly misleading advert about offshore wind power, placed by a group of wind farm interests and left wing green outfits.
The posters, placed at some London Underground stations, specifically states:
The price paid for electricity from offshore wind farms has fallen by 50% over the last five years.
I have now had a chance to put together the actual figures, which tell a completely different story.
In the last full financial year, 2016/17, offshore wind produced 16.4 TWh.
Nearly all of this, 16.2 TWh, was subsidised via the Renewables Obligation mechanism, under which all licensed electricity suppliers in the United Kingdom must either source a certain proportion of electricity from renewable sources, or pay for Renewable Obligation Certificates, ROCs, currently priced at £45.58.
Offshore wind farms receive a greater allowance of ROCs than, for instance, onshore wind. This is intended to reflect the higher costs of the former. Most offshore operations now receive 2 ROCs per MWh.
In total during 2016/17, offshore wind farms were awarded 30,753,577 ROCs, worth at current prices £1401 million. This equates to £86/MWh.
On top of this subsidy, of course, the wind farms also get paid for the electricity they produce, for which the current market price is £46.40/MWh.
In total then, offshore wind farms are paid £132.40/MWh, nearly triple the market price. All of this is funded by electricity bill payers.

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 10:27 am

Sounds like it is time to stop ALL subsidies for Wind and Solar. If prices are droping then they no longer require the Leg-Up

Richard Bell
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 11:06 am

Without spinning machines to stiffen up the grid and pull power from the asynchronous wind turbines and DC solar/battery backup, the only viable method of handling power transients is load shedding, producing rolling BLACKOUTS, not brownouts. South Australia wind farms were prevented from supplying power when demand exceeded supply by the grid voltage collapse, despite the wind farms experiencing optimum power generation conditions.

Quilter52
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 3:40 pm

In that case they wont need the subsidies, will they? And pigs are fueling as we speak.

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 4:44 pm

Sounds like their only perfect would would be Roof Top Solar installations on ALL building to charge/recharge personal Battery Back-ups for the times of those 10 hour Rolling Blackouts that happen every night

LdB
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 7:26 pm

It stops pretty abruptly when the Grid can’t be stabilized, you then need to work on storage systems. That problem tends to be far slower to solve. Eco stupids like Griff’s of the world think you can just hang batteries in every house to solve the issue but the problem is they don’t understand power distribution. You need the storage on the main transmission trunk like the South Australian situation which will be interesting to watch and learn from. I think a lot will be learned from the SA experience both good and bad although I still wonder about the eco damage of so many batteries. I would have thought at that scale the pump water uphill or up a tower approach would have been move eco friendly but a lot less efficient.

AndyE
October 9, 2017 9:31 pm

Bravo!!!!!

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
October 9, 2017 9:42 pm

When it comes to the hip pocket, attitudes change.

Patrick MJD
October 9, 2017 9:44 pm

Could be Abbott is after the top job again and he, as well as everyone else, knows Turnbull is a traitor, a full believer in AGW/CC and strong supporter of a tax on energy because his mates at Goldman Sachs wants it. Nothing will save the LNP next election time anyway and Australian energy consumers will have to bear possibly two ~20% price increases before then.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 9, 2017 10:26 pm

Prime Minister Tony Abbott tried to have the RET abolished along with the subsidies but the hostile Senate blocked the Bill. The Senate only agreed to cap the RET at the 23 per cent the previous Labor Government established which they raised from the original post Kyoto Agreement 2 per cent trial RET.
Former Prime Minister John Howard said recently that the trial RET should never have been increased.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 10, 2017 5:15 am

Another financial “connection” that maybe should be kept in mind:
http://behind-the-matrix.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-goldman-sachs-rothschilds-took-over.html
There will be wars and because there will be wars, the wealthy will be made more wealthy.

toorightmate
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 10, 2017 6:06 am

Abbott is the second Australian conservative leader that Turnbull knifed.
The left wing media has conveniently forgotten that the indecisive buffoon who we currently have as a Prime Minister also knifed Brendon Nelson.

Sceptical lefty
Reply to  toorightmate
October 10, 2017 3:15 pm

Mr Abbott was disposed of by the Liberal Party, despite his being well-liked within the parliamentary Party, because the ‘king-makers’ believed (correctly, in my view) that his broad electoral unpopularity would have dealt them a severe defeat in the then-impending general election. Mr Turnbull was installed as leader, despite his being generally disliked within the parliamentary Liberal Party, because he was perceived as being electorally popular. The results of the subsequent election seem to indicate that was a wise decision.
There have been several half-hearted (kite-flying?) attempts to resurrect Mr Abbott’s political career. These have all failed, chiefly due to Mr Abbott’s own ineptitude. Mr Turnbull may not be an ideal leader, but you should be very careful about wishing him gone.
The Liberals still have in their recent memory the classic example of how NOT to deal with an inconvenient leader. The story of the Australian Labor Party’s disposal of Kevin Rudd is practically a manual of political incompetence.
I think it unlikely that the Liberal Party will lose the next general election, not because they are much good (They aren’t!) but because their lacklustre opponents cannot land any decent punches. Why would Australian voters dump the “indecisive” Malcolm Turnbull for the uninspiring mediocrity of Bill Shorten? A moderately dramatic incident at election time could tip the result either way. Happy voting!

Reply to  toorightmate
October 11, 2017 3:21 pm

Add to that Liberal MP Peter King who was the member for Wentworth electorate in Sydney. Turnbull decided he wanted to enter politics and stacked the local Liberal Party Branches with his own people. At the time branch members pre-selected their candidate by secret ballot and Turnbull managed to replace King to become the candidate and then member for that very safe Liberal seat.
Since Turnbull and his “black hand” faction have seized control of the Liberal Party and it’s executive and pre-selection via branch membership was replaced with appointment from HQ. Happily, at a recent Liberal Party Conference, Tony Abbott put forward a motion for branch pre-selection of candidates to be reinstated which was approved by two votes every one (approximately).
www,stopturnbull.com
The above website is well worth perusing.

Reply to  toorightmate
October 11, 2017 3:25 pm

I should have added that Labor is no better, once closely associated with the union movement the ALP is now completely controlled by the unions and many Labor MPs are former union trained executives, such as Leader Bill Shorten who was once a senior Australian Worker’s Union executive.
Journalist Max Walsh wrote in The Bulletin Magazine during 2006 about the “corporate style takeover”, the parachuting of union executives into safe Labor seats and more. He wrote that the objective was to control all Australian governments. And therefore the judiciary, the industrial relations laws, etc.

climanrecon
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 10, 2017 4:42 am

Reminds me of Deputy Dawg and (Elon) muskie:

Griff
Reply to  climanrecon
October 10, 2017 4:58 am

I loved that show…

LdB
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 10, 2017 7:33 pm

I love how when the North and very edge of East Coast gets a heat wave it’s an Australia heatwave.
The other half of Australia is predicted on trend by the BOM yeah that is the big white bit which is at least the same size as the red bit.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/archive/outlooks/latest-outlook.shtml

John F. Hultquist
October 9, 2017 9:52 pm

Wind towers do have a role in the economy of a modern nation, example:
http://tapmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Picture_00212.jpg

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 9, 2017 10:28 pm

Definitely: putt putt putt …

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 2:49 am

Well putt putt there.. 😉

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 9, 2017 11:04 pm

Love it.

Nigel S
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 10, 2017 12:20 am

It’s a level playing field, honest!

john harmsworth
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 10, 2017 6:49 am

I notice it isn’t moving. Very realistic! Equal output to much, much, much more expensive models.

Leonard Lane
October 9, 2017 9:53 pm

The sooner and quicker renewable energy is subsidy/grant/tax gift/etc. free and on its own, the sooner it will fade away and economies around the world can stabilize into a reasonable growth rate.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 9, 2017 10:23 pm

Only socialists pick winners and losers, capitalists leave markets to choose.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 9, 2017 11:17 pm

Just name one picked winner by a government in any place on earth.
I can pick tens of thousands of picked losers not to mention the 100 years of Marx and 100 million dead people all were losers in that way of governing.

Griff
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 2:14 am

I see: that’s why Trump is subsidising US coal now, is it?

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 2:35 am

Elon Musk

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 4:32 am

“Griff October 10, 2017 at 2:14 am
I see: that’s why Trump is subsidising US coal now, is it?”
Trump started the subsidies, really?

Griff
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 4:57 am

but Patrick his new boondoggle is an EXTRA subsidy, isn’t it?
Designed to contradict the markets (which are driving out coal)
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/as-doe-seeks-to-boost-coal-luminant-to-shut-major-texas-plant/506750/
“In the end, Luminant’s decision (to shut the coal plant) was not based on environmental regulations and policies, but on market economics. “The market’s unprecedented low power price environment has profoundly impacted its operating revenues and no longer supports continued investment,” “

MarkW
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 7:15 am

Trump is removing the ridiculous regulations put in place by Obama.
To the know nothings, this constitutes a subsidy.

MarkW
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 7:17 am

Funny how demanding that unreliable sources such as wind and solar be given precedence when power is being purchased and as a result, other forms of power being put at a disadvantage, is now called “market economics”.

Bob boder
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 10:57 am

Markw
To communist everything belongs to the state, so anyone getting to keep some money is being subsidized.

LdB
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 7:37 pm

So that is in the same league as Griff’s other fosil fuel subsidy which was Company tax write offs. Every company other than fossil fuel companies can have write offs but if a fossil fuel company does it then it’s a subsidy. It seemed to get lost on him that the renewable companies would be doing the same.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 10, 2017 4:44 am

Leonard Lane – October 9, 2017 at 9:53 pm

The sooner and quicker renewable energy is subsidy/grant/tax gift/etc. free and on its own, the sooner it will fade away and economies around the world can stabilize into a reasonable growth rate.

HA, just because the additional BILLION$ of taxpayer extorted monies are no longer being “FREELY” given to “renewable energy” producers via subsidies/grants/tax breaks/gifts, etc. …… doesn’t mean that the taxpayers are going to be given relief from paying the aforenoted ……. “additional BILLION$ of extorted tax monies or the INCREASED costs of goods or services”.

commieBob
October 9, 2017 9:57 pm

The premier of Ontario (Canada) has an abysmal public approval rating and there’s an election looming. The main cause has to be mismanagement of the electricity system. There are windmills everywhere and electricity prices were soaring. The ruling Liberals knocked down the prices when they realized how much they were hated. The price of electricity in Ontario is still way too high. The public isn’t fooled.
The idea of high electricity prices is that people will be forced to conserve. When the actual consequences of sky high electricity prices kick in, the citizens are enraged. They will not meekly freeze in the dark.

J Mac
Reply to  commieBob
October 9, 2017 10:22 pm

“….People will be forced to conserve.”
Indeed. The over-reach and waste of socialist bureaucrats is what makes conservatives of many citizens.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  commieBob
October 10, 2017 4:54 am

Since they haven’t knocked down the rent-seeking contracts that the earlier higher prices were supporting, I am guessing they must be funding all the RE nonsense out of general revenue now, instead of from electricity bills. I sure do hope the public isn’t fooled!

Trebla
Reply to  commieBob
October 10, 2017 6:23 am

Commie Bob: the “brilliant” solution provided by the Ontario premier to the doubling of electricity rates was two-pronged: 1 – eliminate the provincial sales tax on electricity, 2 – issue government-backed bonds to subsidize reductions in electricity rates, the bonds being repayable at a later date. Of course, ratepayers are on the hook for both these scams. Only in a Griff world would such behaviour be considered rational.

MarkW
Reply to  Trebla
October 10, 2017 7:18 am

The other option is to subsidize power for the poor, by increasing taxes on the middle class.

rubberduck
October 9, 2017 10:02 pm

There’s no way that Turnbull will wind back renewables, he ratified the Paris agreement even after it was clear that Trump intended to take the US out of it. Abbott might be sincere, but it’s unlikely that he will return as PM, and even if he did he wouldn’t have control of the Senate (the last time he was PM, he gave up on most reforms for that reason). Judith Sloan writes good stuff, but it’s read by a very small number of people, most of whom already agree with her.
So unfortunately I don’t see any revolution occurring in energy policy in Australia. It would be nice, but it would also be nice if I won the lottery.

Reply to  rubberduck
October 9, 2017 10:22 pm

Given that very few member nations ratified the Paris Agreement and a few such as China and India refuse to even consider emissions reduction before 2040, Australia should advise the UN that our nation will no longer be held to ransom.
President Donald Trump led the way.

Griff
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 2:13 am

but all except US and N Korea have signed up to it…

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 4:33 am

“Griff October 10, 2017 at 2:13 am
but all except US and N Korea have signed up to it…”
Care to list that “all” except 2?

Griff
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 4:55 am

No. It is quite clear – the only 2 nations in the world not in the Paris agreement are N Korea (never signed) and USA (pulling out).
I’m sure wikipedia lists the other nations of the world.

joe - non climate scientist
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 5:08 am

Griff
A( paris agreement is a treaty, contrary to obama’s assertion, which requires senate approval
B The US senate would never approve it
C Kyoto is also a treaty which the US senate never ratified
D Even though Kyoto was never ratified by the US senate, The US is just about the only country that met Kyoto’s targets

Old England
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 5:46 am

@ Griff – I suggest you actually read and understand the Paris Climate Agreement before commenting on it and praising it.
What it a actually achieves and permits is a massive 46% INCREASE in global CO2 emissions between now and 2030 ….. so much for any concern about ‘reducing’ CO2 emissions or any concern at all that increasing them might have the slightest effect on global temperatures.
Each signatory can determine what if any change they will make to national emissions through non-binding INDCs (independent nationally determined contributions). Hence India chose to Treble, and China to Double their respective CO2 emissions by 2030.
No, if anything, Paris demonstrates that AGW scaremongering has nothing to do with science – it is pure politics. The green Marxism that drives that policy towards western de-industrialisation and steadily increased control over people’s lives is what this is, and has always been about – it is Not the Climate it is self-interest of both political operators and financial greed of the renewable industry such as Gore.
Useful idiots, including web trolls are deployed to try and keep the scam and the $$$ rolling.

MarkW
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 7:19 am

In Griff’s world, the actions of a politician constitute proof of a theory.

MarkW
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 7:20 am

Old England, Griff routinely posts articles who’s titles sound promising, but when you read the text, actually contradict the point he is trying to make.
Griff never reads anything past the headlines.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 8:16 am

@ Old England
in Griff world, a +46% emission allowance is a massive 54% reduction of emission in front of the previous +100% projected emission (*).
That’s the way Griff’s like calculate subsidies for coal, for instance: suppose coal is taxed 1$, while oil is taxed 2$, well, you could have taxed coal 2$ too, but you didn’t, so the difference is 1 $ coal subsidy (even-though coal industry gave government money). This way, Saudi Arabia subsidies oil, despite getting pretty much all of it’s money from it… Griff fantasy world.
I wish I could subsidize Griff the very same way Saudi’s subsidies oil, I asked him to, but he never answered. I wonder why (or not).
(*) note that the math do not add up, but that’s Griff world, you know.

Bryan A
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 4:56 pm

North Korea didn’t sign as they couldn’t reduce their fossil fuel produced CO2 emissions below essentialy zero. USA is backing out because 20% of the income redistributed to other nations comes from us. Same a the Brexit, mainly because it was the UK supporting Europe.
Any true CO2 emissions reduction scheme MUST include EVERY country reducing equally. No one gets a pass and no “Per Capita” twerking. If one country must reduce 20% by 2025, EVERY country must reduce 20% by 2025. If 50 countries are required to pay into the CO2 Blackmail scheme, then each contributes 2% of the total annual figure…Even splits with no single country shouldering more of the burden.

LdB
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 7:48 pm

Griff again check your facts, you stated wikipedia should have the details so at least go and read. 195 signed the Agreement,168 have ratified or acceded to the Agreement. 3 UN member countries haven’t signed up Nicaragua , Syria, Holy See (not yet a full member).
This is the problem you keep getting found out being fast and loose with the facts.

Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 11, 2017 3:27 pm

Signing the Paris Agreement is not commitment, ratifying the Agreement commits the signatory nation to accept penalties and instructions.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  rubberduck
October 9, 2017 11:22 pm

Electoral defeat is a focusing process.
Consider that the labour party have hitched to the RET etc Turnbull will realize that halving utility prices is a strong election story I would suggest a winning story.
A lot of stuff to go under the bus but such is politics.

Asp
Reply to  rubberduck
October 10, 2017 2:36 am

While to some, the failure of renewables in South Australia, and shortly in Victoria come summer time is obvious, there is already substantial airplay from the ‘progressives’ that the recent steep increases in power pricing is a result of the ‘capitalist pigs’ exporting too much of Australia’s gas, creating a major shortage, with the ensuing high price. Absolutely nothing to do with renewables!!!
Unfortunately, a goodly part of the ‘true believers’ will swallow this, and the moment of truth will be pushed back yet again. One hopes that in time, the credibility of these ‘dream spinners’ will implode, and the majority of Australians will reach the conclusion that they have been sold a pup, and adjust their voting patterns correspondingly.

climanrecon
Reply to  Asp
October 10, 2017 4:57 am

I would love to see the BoM being forced to issue Low Wind warnings, in addition to the ones they do currently for heatwaves, likewise the Met Office in the UK. That would trigger much toy ejection from prams.

October 9, 2017 10:18 pm

Public support (voting intention) has fallen in Australia from 80 per cent historical support for the two major sides (including swinging voters) down to 60 per cent in recent times. At the 2010 election the Labor Government was defeated and was forced to negotiate with outsiders to form an alliance minority government, and in 2013 Labor was defeated in a landslide victory for the Abbott led Coalition.
Australians are now awake to the “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” – Prime Minister Abbott 2015 and related adverse impact on our standard of living, economy and national prosperity in decline. In my opinion voters will swing away from the previous two only alternatives for government as both are now on the same page for UN Paris Agreement agenda and other socialism based change the world agenda.
Therefore it is now likely that a repeat of 2010 will be the result of the next federal election, and next time resulting in alliances of conservative political forces to form a minority government vowing to destroy the road to becoming a socialist nation answering to UN officials. First step to be an EU member?

john harmsworth
Reply to  Dennis Thompson
October 10, 2017 6:55 am

I hope you’re right about all that. Only exception is the EU thing. You may want to be careful going in as the traffic coming out seems to be backed up and growing.

Reply to  john harmsworth
October 11, 2017 3:30 pm

I believe most Australians would be very angry if our politicians tried to convince them that EU membership was way to go.
However, only recently Australia did sign a free trade agreement with the EU nations.

October 9, 2017 10:56 pm

the vast sums of moneys being redistributed from ordinary consumers and taxpayers to the renewable energy rent-seekers.

Ignorant misinterpretation. If governments rig the market with incentives, someone will step up to take advantage of them. That is NOT a frawd or “rent-seeking” it is what the govt was trying stimulate with incentives.
.

Reply to  climategrog
October 9, 2017 11:37 pm

it is what the govt was trying stimulate with incentives.
Since you’re throwing the “ignorant” word around, a bit of history for you.
The original plan was for the west to continue to burn fossil fuels, but subsidize renewables for the 3rd world so that they could lift themselves out of poverty without increasing global emissions. Countries made all sorts of commits, but at end of day they knew that sending subsidy money to the third world would just wind up being skimmed into the pockets of tyrants, and that tax payers would revolt. Enter some savvy capitalists who spun those governments a tail that by investing in renewables they’d be at the cutting edge of the new economy and creating jobs right here at home instead of sending the money overseas. The dream of diverting money to the third world died, and a whole new industry was born; subsidy farming in lieu of wealth transfer. Witness the now infamous (and now obsolete) quote by Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair UN IPCC WG3:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
Ottmar’s plan was hijacked by slick talking renewables salesmen. It was never about incentives, it was about keeping the money “at home” instead of sending it to the third world.
Your apology is accepted.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 10, 2017 3:14 am

well, we can argue whether Al Gore and Elon Musk pocket are “at home”. I don’t care if the guy getting my money is a national or an alien, i care if i get some real stuff out of it or not.
Indeed, i fell that the money would of far better use in some third world country worker that DID work for me (effectively making me richer, from the difference between the work value and the price I paid for it), than in Elon Musk’s.

WR
Reply to  climategrog
October 10, 2017 12:20 am

That’s what rent seeking is.

Nigel S
Reply to  climategrog
October 10, 2017 12:31 am

Many western governments subsidise poverty and fecklessness but that doesn’t make it a good idea to take their taxpayers’ money.

NormaP
October 9, 2017 11:20 pm
October 9, 2017 11:23 pm

Complete fraud and money funnel to fraudsters and glad handers finally discovered. After years of pain and misery by the electorate while the politicians got rich and fat.
Remind anyone of the socialist years when Australia fell 30 years behind the rest of the industrialized world embracing unionism and socialism?

Robert from oz
October 10, 2017 12:00 am

No apology needed , climate grog was spot on and try as I may I just couldn’t find that word “ignorant” .
If the govt introduces subsidies and someone takes advantage of the subsidies don’t blame the subsidy farmer blame the government.
You can question the morals of the company but by govt decree what they are doing is ligit, immoral but totally on the up and up.

Nigel S
Reply to  Robert from oz
October 10, 2017 12:27 am

Except when you lie to influence the government.
https://www.thegwpf.com/gwpf-lodges-asa-complaint-over-false-claims-in-offshore-wind-campaign/
(climategrog’s sub-heading was ‘ignorant misinterpretation’ but perhaps I’ve missed your point).

Reply to  Robert from oz
October 10, 2017 12:29 am

Well he put “ignorant” in bold in his comment, not sure how you managed to miss it.
As for your assertion, if the companies persuaded the governments to put those incentives in place on the promise of intangible benefits that they knew would never materialize, then they are immoral. If the persuaded governments that putting those incentives in place would be a net economic benefit when it was not possible for such a benefit to exist, then they are immoral. There was never a government decree which those companies took advantage of. There were only subsidies that were put in place as a consequence of intense lobbying by those companies.
That governments were stupid enough to be talked into these things doesn’t change anything. The wealth transfer envisioned by the UN was hijacked by the renewables companies. The notion that governments came up with the idea and then renewables companies jumped on it just defies history.
No need to apologize, your inability to find a single word in bold suggests you have a reading comprehension problem which likely contributes to your misunderstanding, and so you may be forgiven.

Nigel S
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 10, 2017 12:34 am

Ed Milliband was in charge in UK so you have to admit the temptation to fill their boots was strong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7550164/Climate-Change-Act-has-the-biggest-ever-bill.html

Robert from oz
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 10, 2017 3:10 am

Apologies David how I missed the “ignorant” must have been I didn’t read the bold . but I never asserted the company’s persuaded the government I said they took advantage of the subsidies.
As for companies lobbying govt to get subsidies (rent seeking) your comments are spot on .

Robert from oz
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 10, 2017 3:42 am

Also your partly right about the comprehension problems ,8 years of morphine dulls the mind just a tad .

George Tetley
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 10, 2017 6:01 am

davidmhoffer
IGNORANT ?? is that another word for GRIFF ?

MarkW
Reply to  Robert from oz
October 10, 2017 7:24 am

In the vast majority of cases, those subsidy farmers are good buddy’s with the politicians who support the subsidies and even played a role in writing the legislation that created the subsidies.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 10, 2017 7:28 am

Even if I’m paid to murder someone, I’m still a murderer.

Sasha
October 10, 2017 12:29 am

Dear Mr Abbott,
Please come to Britain where the ‘renewables’ insanity is getting worse every day.
For example, this is from today’s Independent :
The entire world could be powered by a deep-sea wind farm, scientists find
Building one the size of India over the North Atlantic could solve the world’s power problems
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/wind-farm-world-renewable-energy-green-deep-sea-india-electricity-power-north-atlantic-a7991326.html
The sooner these idiots are put in their place, the better.

Nigel S
Reply to  Sasha
October 10, 2017 12:37 am

Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Sasha
October 10, 2017 7:10 am

What is going to happen if these gadgets take energy excessively out of their surroundings? The climate and the weather are being robbed of their natural driving force. Result: man made climate change on a very large scale and a breakdown of sea and wind currents. Will it shut off the gulf streams?

MarkW
Reply to  Sasha
October 10, 2017 7:30 am

Were they planning on leaving lanes for shipping, or do they just expect the freighters to go around these fields?

Roger Knights
Reply to  Sasha
October 10, 2017 1:19 pm

Such a farm would disrupt the globe’s wind circulation patterns, no? Then what?

tobyglyn
October 10, 2017 12:31 am

My (Sydney) power bill this quarter is almost AUS$830. It is made up of my use and the downstairs (single) tenant. My landlord has not installed separate meters and we are supposed to split the bill although she has now moved out without paying her share.
I’m not sure how long I can continue paying even half of this 🙁
I am so glad we are saving the planet (insert preferred emoticon here)

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  tobyglyn
October 10, 2017 3:04 am

Ouch!
I’d suggest moving out if at all possible. Situations such as those don’t ever end well. Legally though, your landlord should have to cover her half of the unpaid bill and then he’d have to sue her for it back. It’s his business and his risk, such as insurance.
Any takers on this issue?
Conversely, I used to own a unit in Melbourne being part of a 5 unit block, all with just the one water meter. Some quarters I had to pay my share of 5,000 litres of water – although I was always at work and could never use even 20% of that.
Some hypocritical greenies just take advantage ya know, like complaining that people should take 3 minute showers or none at all, while they slop around in their own for some 20 minutes.
I wonder what – on a greenie – takes so long to clean.. Their SUV..?

Robert from oz
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
October 10, 2017 3:40 am

Yes it would be the landlord that has to cover it .

Patrick MJD
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
October 10, 2017 4:39 am

“Robert from oz October 10, 2017 at 3:40 am
Yes it would be the landlord that has to cover it .”
Depends if it is a sub-let. The leaseholder is responsible unless an arrangement is made with the owner. Be very careful when renting in Aus. The rules will screw you over and Fair Trading is as useful as a soggy weetbix box.

MarkW
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
October 10, 2017 7:31 am

My ex-wife’s grandmother used to own some apartments. If the tenant skipped out without paying, she was responsible for paying the bill.

drednicolson
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
October 10, 2017 7:47 am

Probably keep trying in vain to wash off the vegan sweat-stink, before giving up and covering it with patchouli and pot. A dubious improvement.
Read your renter’s agreement at least twice before signing (good idea anywhere, but especially so in AUS). One of those dollar-store line-by-line magnifiers comes highly recommended. 😐

drednicolson
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
October 10, 2017 8:00 am

My older brother works for a man who, along with a large ranch, owns about 50 rental properties. For him, three months delinquency in rent = eviction notice, no questions asked. By that point it’s highly unlikely they’ll pay up, so better to cut losses and make room for paying tenants.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  tobyglyn
October 10, 2017 4:36 am

“tobyglyn October 10, 2017 at 12:31 am”
My power bill doubled in the 60 days either side of July 1st 2017. Same useage. I can’t wait for my next quarter with a ~20% uplift in prices since July 1st.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 10, 2017 4:40 am

Sorry 30 days either side of July 1st.

Editor
October 10, 2017 1:35 am

The inevitable results of the Green Gangrene Revolution…comment image

Griff
Reply to  David Middleton
October 10, 2017 2:12 am

costs of Australian electricity are high to to past over investment in fossil fuel infrastructure for a predicted demand increase which never materialised.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 4:42 am

Again Griff has no idea about power in Aus.

Griff
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 4:47 am

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/EnergyPrices
“In recent years, much of the increase in prices has been attributed to the need to invest in the network component because of previous underinvestment in maintaining the network or to increase capacity”
“Smaller electricity price increases are largely the result of recent changes to the regulation of transmission and distribution networks and competition in electricity wholesale markets due to low demand growth.”

Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 4:59 am

The costs are skyrocketing due to a lack of investment in fossil fuel infrastructure and the inability of wind & solar to actually replace coal…

What caused the power price spike?
There are two main causes of the sudden jump in electricity prices. And despite the frothing anger from the shock jocks, it has nothing to do with the rise of renewables.
The main cause is a lack of investment. And the second is the soaring price of gas.
As old coal-fired plants have been retired, there has been insufficient investment to replace them because power companies have been left in policy limbo over carbon pricing.
[…]
How does gas affect electricity prices?
The second contributor to soaring electricity prices has been the sudden spike in gas prices.
In the absence of any political leadership, the power industry correctly figured renewables such as wind and solar eventually would be cheaper and more efficient than coal. That is because the fuel — wind and sun — is free and the maintenance costs of the plants is low.
The problem with renewables is their unreliability. Given Australia’s gas abundance, the idea was that gas would cut in whenever there was an energy shortfall.
Unlike coal plants that take weeks to fire up or shut down, gas turbines can be turned on and off at short notice, making them ideal to fill the breech when renewables are offline.
As the last player to enter the market, during power shortages, gas becomes the overall price setter. In case you have not noticed, gas prices have quadrupled because the exporters — many of which are the electricity generators — have sold more gas to offshore customers than their reserves. So, they pillaged local supplies, sending domestic gas prices through the roof.
[…]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/gas-not-coal-the-fix-to-australias-soaring-electricity-prices/8890818
Unlike the US, Australia doesn’t produce enough natural gas to export large volumes of LNG without driving up the price of gas in Australia.
Your coal plants are shutting down and being replaced by unreliable wind & solar and expensive natural gas plants. Claims that wind & solar are now less expensive than coal per MW are wholly irrelevant. Solar and wind have to be 1/4 to 1/2 the price of coal per MW to compete.

lee
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 5:08 am

Meanwhile the Australian Energy Market Operator has warned that wind will provide between 2%-5% of nameplate capacity this summer, based on past performance. Expect blackouts.

toorightmate
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 6:14 am

Griff,
I’ll be as nice as I possibly can be about this particular comment of yours.
Utter Rubbish.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 7:35 am

That would explain why they keep having trouble with blackouts and brown outs. They have too much fossil fuel capacity.

Bob boder
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 11:02 am

Griff
What’s so scary is you actually believe the BS you spew.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 12:36 pm

Why is it that EVERYTHING griff says is immediately and totally PROVEN TO BE WRONG. 🙂
griff… a fountain of ANTI-science and ANTI-knowledge.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 12:37 pm

“Unlike the US, Australia doesn’t produce enough natural gas to export large volumes of LNG without driving up the price of gas in Australia.”
We could if the greenie REGRESSIVES would get out of the way.
Plenty there. !

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 5:03 pm

Aussie,
Keep Calm and Frack On

LdB
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 8:34 pm

Griff newsflash you still need the network and transmission lines no matter what the source of the energy. The low demand growth is because Australia went thru a technical recession, take a look at our GDP rate it’s horrible.
I don’t get how you attribute transmission and distribution to only fossil fuel infrastructure every house regardless of the renewable setup is connected to the grid for 2 reasons. First they want the rebate and second they need the grid for night and peak demand use of the house. There may be a few off grid houses around but it’s something very rare by eco warrior types. For 99% of Australians they are connected and rely on the grid and it is essential to them.
Sitting in your UK council flat it’s pretty hard to understand things half a world away so please stop trying to comment on things you aren’t willing to do the homework on to understand.

AndyG55
Reply to  David Middleton
October 10, 2017 2:17 am

The governments of Australia MUST do something about this.
DUMP THE RET
REMOVE ALL RENEWABLE SUBSIDIES.
REMOVE ALL FEED-IN TARIFFS ABOVE NORMAL WHOLESALE PRICE.
BUILD A NEW HIGH-EFFICENCY COAL OR GAS FIRED POWER STATION IN EACH STATE

DHR
Reply to  David Middleton
October 10, 2017 2:44 am

It gets worse! Here in southern Maryland, USA, I pay just under $.07/KWH for electricity, mostly from gas and coal.

Non Nomen
Reply to  DHR
October 10, 2017 10:35 pm

Lucky sod. Denmark is 0.30 € (0.35 USD), Germany 0.28 € (0.33 USD) per KWH

Robert from oz
Reply to  David Middleton
October 10, 2017 2:59 am

That graph is wrong for Victoria , I paid about 41 cents plus line rental on the winter bill .

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Robert from oz
October 10, 2017 3:09 am

If ya check ya bill Rob, electrickery’s cheap-compared to the supply charge!
Daylight robbery (oops.. no pun intended Rob)..
From Albury NSW

Robert from oz
Reply to  Robert from oz
October 10, 2017 3:14 am

Supply charge $130 per quarter electricity $500- $700 per quarter but have just changed to a cheaper retailer so next bill will tell .

Robert from oz
Reply to  Robert from oz
October 10, 2017 3:16 am

Given we’re only 70 kilometres apart does your electrons come from the snowy hydro as well .

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Robert from oz
October 10, 2017 4:49 am

“Robert from oz October 10, 2017 at 3:14 am
…changed to a cheaper retailer so next bill will tell .”
In the long run, it won’t matter as ALL retailers will be upping their rates because they get their power from the same sources. Grid connected, right? So, you can switch and save short term, but 12 months later, you will be at the full rate. I have seen the offers myself and laugh. I have even been on the phone to my supplier, they asked if I was calling about not being able to pay (I wasn’t) and I said, off the cuff something like, “…you will be seeing more and more cases where people can’t pay..” and the reply was something like… “My in box is stacked with unable to pay cases…”
There we have it.

EdBCN
Reply to  David Middleton
October 10, 2017 1:22 pm

Interestingly your chart doesn’t seem to support your thesis:
Spain with 34% renewables (heavy on the wind and solar) has lower rates than Australia with about 14% renewables. Or you can look at Australia and the US, both with about 14% renewables but at radically different prices. Or comparing Australia with Portugal you have similar prices but Portugal has three times as much renewables at 45%.
To the extent that there is a correlation between higher market penetration of renewables and higher prices, It is almost certainly the high prices that attract investment in renewables rather than the other way around.
It’s absurd to blame renewables for the high cost/low reliability electric grid in Australia when it’s 85% fossil fuelled and the first utility scale solar plant wasn’t even brought on-line until about two years ago. The crisis in Australia is all the making of the old fossil fuel generators and the over-built grid that was meant to serve them.

Reply to  EdBCN
October 10, 2017 1:35 pm

I didn’t blame renewables for Australia’s high electricity prices. I blamed the lack of investment in fossil fuel infrastructure for the high prices (part of the Gangrene Revolution).

The costs are skyrocketing due to a lack of investment in fossil fuel infrastructure and the inability of wind & solar to actually replace coal…

What caused the power price spike?
There are two main causes of the sudden jump in electricity prices. And despite the frothing anger from the shock jocks, it has nothing to do with the rise of renewables.
The main cause is a lack of investment. And the second is the soaring price of gas.
As old coal-fired plants have been retired, there has been insufficient investment to replace them because power companies have been left in policy limbo over carbon pricing.
[…]
How does gas affect electricity prices?
The second contributor to soaring electricity prices has been the sudden spike in gas prices.
In the absence of any political leadership, the power industry correctly figured renewables such as wind and solar eventually would be cheaper and more efficient than coal. That is because the fuel — wind and sun — is free and the maintenance costs of the plants is low.
The problem with renewables is their unreliability. Given Australia’s gas abundance, the idea was that gas would cut in whenever there was an energy shortfall.
Unlike coal plants that take weeks to fire up or shut down, gas turbines can be turned on and off at short notice, making them ideal to fill the breech when renewables are offline.
As the last player to enter the market, during power shortages, gas becomes the overall price setter. In case you have not noticed, gas prices have quadrupled because the exporters — many of which are the electricity generators — have sold more gas to offshore customers than their reserves. So, they pillaged local supplies, sending domestic gas prices through the roof.
[…]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/gas-not-coal-the-fix-to-australias-soaring-electricity-prices/8890818
Unlike the US, Australia doesn’t produce enough natural gas to export large volumes of LNG without driving up the price of gas in Australia.
Your coal plants are shutting down and being replaced by unreliable wind & solar and expensive natural gas plants. Claims that wind & solar are now less expensive than coal per MW are wholly irrelevant. Solar and wind have to be 1/4 to 1/2 the price of coal per MW to compete.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/09/aussie-revolution-mounting-high-level-attacks-against-renewable-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-2632182
Australia is an outlier…comment image

Figure 1. Electricity costs as a function of per capita installed renewable capacity. Wind and solar only, excludes hydropower. [Updated to add Australia and correct the units]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/03/obama-may-finally-succeed/

james whelan
Reply to  EdBCN
October 10, 2017 2:34 pm

EdBCN, you forgot to mention that both Spain and Portugal have a very large element of Hydro generation. The reason both systems can carry the amount of wind power and to a lesser degree, solar, is because they can instantly manage the system with the hydro. About 50% of Portugal’s generation is hydro with a large element of pump storage. Both countries started with this advantage when deciding to move from nuclear investment to wind/solar.
Your last para is just plain wrong.

October 10, 2017 1:53 am

PDF versions:
Sloan article:
http://tinyurl.com/y93fyrae
Tony Abbott speech:
http://tinyurl.com/y7tbetnu

October 10, 2017 2:01 am

Link to Judith Sloan article:
http://tinyurl.com/yc8r52l4
First time I think I have seen a comment like “Without a doubt, the biggest scam perpetrated against
taxpayers and consumers is renewable energy” in a national newspaper
Link to Abbott article:
http://tinyurl.com/y7tbetnu

Griff
October 10, 2017 2:11 am

It doesn’t really matter what Abbott says, because the economics of renewables in Australia are such that renewables will drive out fossil fuel.
The Sloan article is riddled with errors…
Merkel shut down nuclear due to safety concerns, not so renewables could replace it. Germany reformed its subsidy arrangements in favour of auctions late last year. The statement on curtailment is in error and Germany is busy planning for a worse case 8 day low wind and solar … remember it is only in 2030 do they go to 505 of all electricity from renewables (currently 35% with world’s most stable grid).

Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 5:13 am

Griff October 10, 2017 at 2:11 am Edit
It doesn’t really matter what Abbott says, because the economics of renewables in Australia are such that renewables will drive out fossil fuel.
[…]

comment image
http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/8890842/data/graph%3A-implied-cost-of-new-generation-data.jpg
Coal and natural gas combined cycle have capacity factors of about 85%.
Solar and wind are generally no better than 30%.
You have to deploy about 3 MW of wind and solar to offset 1 MW of coal or gas and you have to pay for storage, which is not part of the LCOE equation. For solar and wind to actually replace coal, their costs, including storage would have to be less than half the cost of gas & coal.

Old England
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 7:26 am

Wonderful News – all renewable subsidies can be immediately removed and in Griff’s fantasy world will deliver the cheapest electricity on the planet …….
BTW Merkel shut down nuclear over fear of a Fukushima style breakdown, shame she didn’t ignore the back-to-the-stone-age greens …. if she had just looked at some maps she’d have realised that German reactors weren’t vulnerable to a tsunami.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 7:39 am

That must explain why they pass laws requiring retailers to buy renewable power when it’s available. It’s so much cheaper.
As to the concerns about safety, they were and have always been rubbish.
Nuclear is by far the safest form of electrical power.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 12:40 pm

Good to see that griff concurs with Tony Abbott about REMOVING ALL SUBSIDIES, and feed-in mandates. 🙂
There were absolutely ZERO safety concerns with German reactors. It was a political decision only
Again.. WHY WITH THE LIES, griff !!!

October 10, 2017 2:30 am

Thank you Eric Worrall for another worthwhile article.
Ever wonder why the Excess Winter Mortality Rate in a warm country like Australia is significantly higher than a cold country like Canada?
See Table 2 in the Lancet study for the evidence.
http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTextImages?pii=S0140-6736%2814%2962114-0
I suggest two factors dominate – adaptation to cold weather is better in Canada, with better home insulation and heating systems AND also lower energy costs.
High energy costs are, I suggest, one of the factors that lead to higher Winter Mortality Rates, which especially target the elderly and the poor.
But don’t worry – our idiot politicians in Canada are following Australia’s lead, with Ottawa, Ontario and Alberta leading the charge. We will catch up soon.
When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die – that is the tragic legacy of global warming alarmism.
Regards, Allan

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Allan MacRae
October 10, 2017 3:10 am

Ever wonder why the Excess Winter Mortality Rate in a warm country like Australia is significantly higher than a cold country like Canada?

It’s called the flu.. at the moment (koff)..

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
October 10, 2017 7:58 am

Revvy – Are you suggesting that Canadians do not get the flu? Actually, we do. Maybe you are being funny.
However, Excess Winter Mortality is a huge problem, with Excess Winter Deaths totaling about 2 million per year globally, 25,000 to 50,000 every year in the United Kingdom, and about 100,000 every year in the USA.
In the USA, that is equivalent to two 9-11’s every week for 14 weeks every year. America should realize who its real enemies are. Instead of bombing Iraq, they should have nuked Greenpeace and fellow-travelers. 🙂
[Read Patrick Moore’s analysis* of the leftist takeover of Greenpeace, a group that he co-founded, if you want to understand how it works.]
Ever wonder why the Excess Winter Mortality Rate in the United Kingdom is typically twice as high as a cold country like Canada? We have similar genetics and similar health care systems, but Canada has better housing and much cheaper energy.
Killing off the elderly and the poor is the current fad among warmist politicians – their mantra is “Nobody cares about the elderly and the poor – they don’t give us any money, so screw ‘em!”.
If you want to understand why so many politicians support the global warming sc@m, it is because they are financed by the companies that have received trillions of dollars in subsidies – these companies siphon off a portion of these subsidies for their political supporters, to keep them in power. Crooked politicians love a big sc@m, because that is where they can get the most money.
* Reference:
http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/key-environmental-issues/10-key-environmental-issues/208-key-environmental-issues-4
THE RISE OF ECO-EXTREMISM
Excerpted from “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”
written in 1994 by Dr. Patrick Moore

Griff
Reply to  Allan MacRae
October 10, 2017 4:49 am

The excess winter mortality in Germany is lower than in the UK, despite Germany being colder and having higher electricity prices…
(and the majority of excess winter deaths are from flu and other viruses… not directly from the cold)

Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 6:55 am

Germany was not included in the Lancet study.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 7:41 am

Flu and viruses spread in the winter because people are cramped together indoors. Because of the cold.

james whelan
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 8:50 am

Griff, I can’t compute how many times it has been explained to you how stupid your assertions about Germany’s grid stability is.
You mentioned once you remember playing near to coal mines in England. Did you fall down a mine and receive irreparable brain damage?
Have you managed to apply for German full-time residence before Brexit closes the door, sounds like you would be happier there, especially living next to one their brand new shiny lignite power stations

drednicolson
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 9:17 am

Distinction Without a Difference, Griff.
Be careful, over-indulging at the Fallacy Buffet makes you fat-headed.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 10:44 pm

Heating in Germany is most often gas and oil central heating, no additional electric energy is needed except for the operation of the pumps. Electric heating like night storage heating has become almost extinct.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 10:58 pm

“Heating in Germany is most often gas and oil central heating, no additional electric energy is needed except for the operation of the pumps. Electric heating like night storage heating has become almost extinct.” I forgot to mention that gas prices have gone down slightly, ditto fuel oil prices, although a bit less. Many German suburbs are connected to a district heating grid and these have long-term and therefore price-stable supply contracts. The insulation of German houses is considered to be much better than in the US and exceeds UK standards.

ClimateOtter
October 10, 2017 2:44 am

Yo griff! When are you going to come in and tell us how Affordable energy is in SA these days, ’cause Renewables?

Griff
Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 10, 2017 4:50 am

I can tell you it isn’t more expensive ‘because renewables…’

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 7:07 am

you sure make a specialty to tell plain false things, so no doubt you can!

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 12:45 pm

You can fantasize, griff..
Whatever is it that you take to keep up your cognitive blackness?
Its as though your neurons fire in reverse. !!

drednicolson
Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 10, 2017 9:29 am

Rule 1: Socialist policies never cause any problems.
Rule 2: When socialist policies cause problems, blame greedy capitalists and see Rule 1.

EdBCN
Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 10, 2017 11:12 am

It’s simple economic logic that places with pre-existing high energy cost will be more open to finding alternatives and also be the first markets that renewables will penetrate as their relative costs drop. High energy cost are causing stronger investment in solar, wind and batteries, not the other way around. The fact that Australia’s grid, which is 85% fossil fueled, supplies some of the world’s most expensive and unreliable electricity is what is driving its renewable energy revolution. You should expect this trend to accelerate as these cost differentials continue rapidly in renewables favor.

Reply to  EdBCN
October 10, 2017 2:19 pm

EdBCN – you sound like Griff. Your statements are similarly false.

LdB
Reply to  EdBCN
October 10, 2017 8:46 pm

Simple logic perhaps but it’s fatally flawed due to lack of understanding of Australia. The real driver of renewables in Australia is the feed in subsidies and grants as required to try and meet emission targets.

Bryan A
Reply to  EdBCN
October 11, 2017 5:52 am

Are their any data that prove your point like indicating less reliability/greater grid instability prior to renewables and decreasing reliability issues/better grid stability after renewables?
This is what it sounds like you are stating. Or am I misreading what you wrote?

nankerphelge
October 10, 2017 2:47 am

There seems to be a lot of twitching in the rears of members of the Australian Government as they are starting to see the ridiculous folly that has been foist upon us. Merkel has also seen it and obviously Trump. The Indians and Chinese have seen their opportunity and will continue down the fossil fuel road. Problem is the headlines do not carry these opposite viewpoints.
Australia has just had the “hottest” winter on record the MSM screamed. Well actually not but that was the headline. There is a long way to go but bit by bit we will get there. These people are not fools, just foolish, and they will not give up easily.

Tom Gelsthorpe
October 10, 2017 3:53 am

Australia is overlooking three key facts about so-called carbon pollution.
1. Carbon dioxide is necessary for all life. You can quibble about what is the optimum atmospheric concentration — which nobody really knows — but it is not poison.
2. The drop-in-the-bucket factor. The entire population of Australia is smaller than each of two cities in China: Shanghai metro, and Chongqing; both are industrializing hell-bent-for-leather. They import Australian coal and iron ore to do it. China as a whole has 50 times Australia’s population. Nothing Aussies do, including cease to exist entirely, can move the global carbon needle, or change the climate for better or worse, 100 years from now. Closer to home, Jakarta metro is also larger than Australia’s entire population; the country of Indonesia has 10 times Australia’s population.
3. China and/or Indonesia may someday covet Australia’s wide open spaces, and want to colonize the joint, especially if Australia commits economic suicide. As it is, China could already buy all of Australia’s energy and mineral assets, and reduce its position to that of 150 years ago as a wool supplier for the industrialized world. Or Aussies can continue to fantasize about influencing climate, and argue like the two fleas in Crocodile Dundee’s joke, about which one of them owns the dog.

Griff
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
October 10, 2017 4:52 am

assuming CO2 was a problem then, only China should do something about it?
Or should the nation outputting the most CO2 stop outputting CO2 and then only when that’s done the next start, and so on?
Every nation should reduce CO2, no mater what share of the world’s CO2 output it is responsible for.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 6:55 am

First time Griff admit that CO2 problem is just an assumption !!!
Great day.
Well, unless you first prove, either, that CO2 is indeed a problem, or that the cost to cope with it is so low we don’t have to go through the hassle to get evidence and can just get rid of the problem just in case (the way we did for Chlorofluorocarbon…
… just do it yourself, to begin with, before demanding that other do it too. An easy way to start would be to emigrate to some low CO2 (i.e., very poor) country and stick to their current way of life, instead of posting anything here. Until then, you are just making a fool of yourself, in the “do as i say, not as i do” fashion.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 12:48 pm

“Every nation should reduce CO2,”
There is absolutely ZERO need for any nation to reduce CO2 output.
The world’s life depends on atmospheric CO2, and the levels are currently only just above sustainable levels.
This anti-CO2 farce cannot continue. The world will eventually wake up to REALITY.

LdB
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 9:03 pm

The other easy solution to halve your CO2 emissions is to kill every second citizen. It’s drastic but it achieves the result. Some countries might elect to simply scrub CO2 out of the air powered from say nuclear power stations. The point being made is if CO2 was a clear and immanent problem different countries may take very different solutions to the problem. The problem CAGW faces is a problem occurring in 100 years is not really a problem. There will be lots of other challenges in the next 100 years and CAGW is not high on the list I worry about.

October 10, 2017 4:34 am

“…a country Victorian gathering”
Not sure where the journalist got this from. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers in Westminster, London, is hardly a ‘country gathering’. I did not wear Victorian dress nor did anyone else!
Great speech and will go on Youtube soon. best to google it via ‘thegwpf’ website.

Griff
Reply to  Philip Foster
October 10, 2017 4:53 am

I’m imagining something out of Jane Austen, complete with country dancing and impeccable manners…

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
October 10, 2017 12:53 pm

The voice of Tony Abbot is being heard far and loud, griff. 🙂
Thanks to stalwarts like him, people are waking up to the FACT that the anti-CO2 travesty, and the whole “renewable” farce, has been NOTHING BUT A CON.

Reply to  Philip Foster
October 10, 2017 2:50 pm

“…a country Victorian gathering” apparently referred to a previous Tony Abbott speech in 2009 – one wonders why the reporter thought this was relevant.
The 2017 Abbott speech was held at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1 Birdcage Walk, Westminster, London.
Birdcage Walk runs from Buckingham Palace along the south side of St. James Park to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Bridge.
For those who do not know it, London is the best “walking city” in the world, imo, and I recommend it highly. Put it on your list, and be sure to allocate several days at the British Museum and the British Library.
Best, Allan

Chris Swinton
Reply to  Allan MacRae
October 10, 2017 7:49 pm

“…a country Victorian gathering” apparently referred to a previous Tony Abbott speech in 2009 – one wonders why the reporter thought this was relevant.
The country Victorian town was I believe Stawell, in the Wimmera region of Victoria 237 kilometres (147 mi) west-north-west of the state capital, Melbourne. the remarks were made during the election campaign…..perhaps the reporter thinks another election is eminent.

Griff
Reply to  Allan MacRae
October 11, 2017 7:40 am

I would recommend a walk starting at Tower Hill tube station, go past roman wall, down side of Tower of London, over Tower Bridge, west past HMS Belfast and along the south bank, passing Southwark Cathedral, Globe Theater, Tate Gallery, then north over Millenium Bridge and to St Pauls.
Gives view of London’s towers, old billingsgate, rather drab current London Bridge and much else, 99% of it at riverside.

Sara
October 10, 2017 5:38 am

So someone whose brains are not in his wallet or pants pockets finally has the juice to shout ‘SCAM!’ loudly enough to embarrass all those who dove on renewable energy.
Good for him. I hope he sticks to his guns and doesn’t let the Greenbeans and nutballs intimidate him.
The last estimate I came across for an individual private home wind/solar combo installation to meet all daily needs in all weather was $25,000+/- $5,000, depending on the size of the house and the labor required. That is only for a newly-built home, not for retrofitting a home. That is certainly not cheap, does not include maintenance or damage replacement costs, or take into account that a bad winter storm can shut the whole thing down with a nice dose of sleet (freezing rain), never mind birds using it as a place to build nests. And location is everything, too. Cost-effective? Recovery for an individual unit plus setup takes more than just a couple of years. And what if you decide to sell your home and the buyer inherits your setup? I wouldn’t want someone else’s financial mess to pay off.
I think I’d much rather stick to the modest cost of my electric bill.

George Taylor
October 10, 2017 5:59 am

Like investing, a diversified portfolio makes sense for the long haul. Cutting out viable energy sources in the name of global climate change is a fools errand. In the recent hurricanes in the US, renewables had and still have not contributed in getting people back on their feet. Countries that invest in green energy at the expense of energy sources is irrational. The taxpayer bears the cost in higher prices and taxes on everything. Germany is a good example. Research and development yes, subsidies no.

Resourceguy
October 10, 2017 6:04 am

This would be a good time to tally all the major renewable energy demonstration projects in Australia and whether they still exist today. Such an effort would be like the surface station project to document weather station competence and compliance.

TA
October 10, 2017 6:18 am

The windmill industry has been advertising quite a bit the last few months on American tv, promoting the wind energy industry.
I think the windmill industry is getting nervous. They are afraid others will do like my home State did a few months ago and stop subsidizing windmills. Some politicians in my State are now proposing taxing the windmill industry just like everyone else is taxed.
Sounds fair to me.

October 10, 2017 6:22 am

“put cost of living and protection of jobs ahead of reducing emissions”
Trumpism goes global?

Bruce Cobb
October 10, 2017 6:29 am

Even the name “clean energy” is a lie by misdirection, implying that CO2 is “dirty”.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 10, 2017 7:05 am

And that “clean” and “renewable” are the same. They are not. Burning wood for heat is renewable, but few things are more dirty and unhealthy. PV is electronics, last time i checked electronics were in the “most dirty” box. As were rare earth mining and refining (needed for turbines and motors, all of them, but since you need 4x as much for wind energy generation than for any other use, wind is, in that respect, 4x dirtier than other use). etc.

Sara
Reply to  paqyfelyc
October 10, 2017 6:27 pm

Burning wood for heat produces potash (among other things), which can be used as follows:
1. De-skunk pets. A handful rubbed on Fido’s coat neutralizes the lingering odor.
2. Hide stains on paving. This Old House technical editor Mark Powers absorbs wet paint spatters on cement by sprinkling ash directly on the spot; it blends in with a scuff of his boot,
3. Enrich compost. Before the organic compound get applied to soil, enhance its nutrients by sprinkling in a few ashes, says the host of radio’s You Bet Your Garden, Mike McGrath. Adding too much, though, ruins the mix.
4. Block garden pests. Spread evenly around garden beds, ash repels slugs and snails.
5. Melt ice. TOH building editor Tom Baker finds it adds traction and de-ices without hurting soil or concrete underneath.
6. Control pond algae. One tablespoon per 1,000 gallons adds enough potassiumm to strengthen other aquatic plants that compete with algae, slowing its growth,
7. Pump up tomatoes. For the calcium-loving plants, McGrath places 1/4 cup right in the hole when planting,
8. Clean glass fireplace doors. A damp sponge dipped in the dust scrubs away sooty residue.
9. Make soap. Soaking ashes in water makes lye, which can be mixed with animal fat and then boiled to produce soap. Salt makes it harden as it cools.
10. Shine silver. A paste of ash and water makes a dandy nontoxic metal polisher.

Reply to  paqyfelyc
October 10, 2017 6:48 pm

+10 Sara
..
Note also that an acre of forest produces about a cord of deadwood/firewood each and every year, so that after 20 years you can’t tell that firewood has been harvested each and every year from that acre.

Jafo
October 10, 2017 6:54 am

the long-suffering taxpayer might receive a return on this ­“investment”, but I wouldn’t suggest you hold your breath.
thats exactly what they want you to do to reduce CO2…hold your breath…lol

Non Nomen
October 10, 2017 7:01 am

The “mad monk” has more common sense than his fellow party members and many, many others can stand.

October 10, 2017 7:42 am

I was there! Packed house, OK its a rationalist bubble. We had one nutter , a chemist who wanted to know why Tony wasn’t supporting cold fusion. Managed to congratulate Tony on shutting down Ozzie DECC, which helped getting UK’s nest of science denying, climate change sacrifice promoting priests shut down and put under the more supposedly rational dept of business/economy. BUT the same old renewable rewarded snake oil sales men MPs and their deceitful civil service priests are still running the legalised climate change protection racket from their new taxpayer funded home at the BEIS, though….
………..on the other hand, nope, there is no other rational other hand.
Tony was good, especially in making the key point that renewable energy laws are based on unquestioning faith in a 21st Century religion that too many people choose to prefer to hard understanding. Perhaps they want to be doing something to save the world from an imaginary problem, not reaising, or happy to ignore the fact, our insignificant lives are not even long enough to experience significant climate change from almost any cause. and such beliefs are easy to exploit to justfy taxes to support what can only make CO2 emissions from the grid expensively worse in science and economic fact. Government at work. The prtiesthood evn transfer their concerns onto people’s children to avoid proving anything in our lifetimes, even more blatant deceit by assertion, but still not long enough for significant change..
Politicians understand the nature and reality of manipulating the fearful beliefs of the hard of fact masses better than rational engineers and scientists, who don’t believe assertive BS of most kinds by training. IMO
I really think we should offer Ozzie greens a life on an Aboriginal reservation, barbecuing Kangeroos on brushwood, and the US Greens on Indian reservations or with the Amish. Leave us alone and suffer the consequences of your beliefs on your own. etc.
A good night was had by all, except deceitful climate change religion and its fraudulent sacrifices. 🙂
I have also just leant that John Howard, mentioned last night, invented the term “Barbecue Stopper” to define a topic of note.
We need to find better ways to make the fraud that is renewable energy subsidy a Barbecue Stopper.
B

Sara
Reply to  brianrlcatt
October 10, 2017 6:22 pm

Put them with the Amish? Why? What did the Amish do to you to deserve that? (joking!)
But, yes, a mandatory 3 year term with the Amish, all labor paid in room and board, learning how REAL subsistence works, and NO modern conveniences, period. I doubt the US Greenbeans would last past the end of summer before reality set up and they decided to stifle themselves.
I can dream, can’t I?

EdBCN
October 10, 2017 10:53 am

Those ‘skyrocketing power prices’ are being supplied by a grid which is 85% fossil fueled. And most of the non-fossil fuel power is supplied by rooftop panels that have been installed by consumers desperate for relief from high electric bills. The time is fast approaching when Australia is going to have to decide to just write off most of its fossil fuel infrastructure so as not to continue to saddle the ratepayers and the economy at large with these inflated costs. It’s pure lunacy that the government is even considering backing new coal mines and plants at this point.

LdB
Reply to  EdBCN
October 10, 2017 9:06 pm

Sure keep dreaming and when your great eco revolution happens came back and tell us all about it.

John
October 10, 2017 10:54 am

Hmm. South Australia has 6 times the electricity cost as where i live (Moldova). If those prices came here, people would be in serious hardship.
Present day renewals are not progressive, but regressive. They are not the future energy source of this planet and need further development. Perhaps that 20 billion the US spends on climate science a year can be diverted.

Jim Heath
October 10, 2017 12:58 pm

The mistake people make is believing politicians are intelligent.

Reply to  Jim Heath
October 11, 2017 4:46 am

I agree Jim.
The fact that so many politicians believe in catastrophic manmade global warming (aka “climate change”) and have squandered trillions on “green energy” schemes that are not green and produce little useful energy is strong evidence that they are imbeciles.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Allan MacRae
October 12, 2017 5:37 am

They are not imbecile, they just specialized in the “get elected” business, and they are quite good at it. This include having electors believe in them having the same sort of beliefs, despite different electors having opposing beliefs.
IOW, they are liars, not imbecile.

October 10, 2017 1:34 pm

This is a good chance to go long on coal power. Just sit one this baby for a few years. I’m sure you can get it for a steal.
https://app.liqimg.com/e/es?s=1526081490&e=373071&elq=4d6aab5614df427c8ad933f8f16cc623
Its the Hazelwood Power Station.

October 10, 2017 2:11 pm

Solar projects all over the world are failing. The $500 million Ivanpah and $500 million Solyndra solar projects in California and the $400 million Abound Solar project in Colorado are three notable failures in the U.S. heavily subsidized by the government. Existing solar energy conversion technology will likely be obsolete even before it can be commissioned. The same can be said about all renewable energy projects. Picking winners is a losers game. The free market wins every time.

Griff
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
October 11, 2017 7:14 am

They are just about the only failures (though Ivanpah isn’t a fail) – and quite different things – Ivanpah is a solar CSP plant and solyndra a panel manufacturer.
google the number of solar projects in India, Japan, UK, Chile which are successfully being built.

Really?
October 10, 2017 2:56 pm

We have made net savings of around $3000 over the past 7 years with our solar pv system and hot water system heat pump (which also harvests renewable energy.
Residential scale solar pays itself off in between 3 and 8 years depending on usage patterns. It is around 70% cheaper than grid power.
Our battery will be linked with a large network (thousands) of other batteries for use as large scale dispatchable energy sharing.
Large scale renwable energy is now cheaper than coal and much ch4eaper than gas.
Flexible capacity and demand management to replace baseload.
Abbott is an utter idiot.
All facts

Reply to  Really?
October 10, 2017 5:13 pm

More likely all false, unless your grid power has been made exorbitant through mismanagement..

Graeme#4
Reply to  Really?
October 10, 2017 5:53 pm

Care to provide some real facts, like the total cost of your installation, your annual energy usage, the percentage of energy drawn from the grid, the battery specs, your anticipated yearly maintenance costs, and the source of your “facts” that clearly indicate that renewable is cheaper than coal? Thought not.

LdB
Reply to  Really?
October 10, 2017 9:18 pm

Even if I took you at face value lets keep it at your level, the supermarket you use can’t do that it’s power use is too high with all that aircon, fridge, freezers and lights. So as the supermarket electricity costs go up it increases it’s margins to cover it. So you save on your direct power cost and pay more for groceries and that is how this game plays out everywhere. You want to go beyond that you have to change the way we live and that is a whole other argument. Even within Green voters which lets call 10% being an sort of an average between upper and lower house over past elections you would need them to hold fast and get 40% more to join for that much of a radical change. Good luck with that.

October 10, 2017 4:43 pm

Really? How long before you need to buy a new battery?
I have a PV rooftop solar of 3KW peak. (not that I think it is a good idea but I got a good deal and had to protect myself against the coming madness). After 5 years it is paid for. How long would a battery take to pay for itself? Sometime longer than its lifetime? How are you going to cope with a few cloudy days. I’ve had 10 days where the sun didn’t shine and it rained all day and night.

Griff
Reply to  Mike Borgelt
October 11, 2017 4:54 am

this appears to answer the question on battery payback for a range of Australian cities.
https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/home-solar-battery-storage-worth-it-2017
Other articles suggested solar PV on its own was a better bet and wait a bit till the battery price goes down.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Griff
October 12, 2017 6:26 am

facepalm.
700$/kWh of storage ? when a kWh is worth like 1/1000 of that, and you still have to get this kWh from somewhere (and pay for it) ?
You can home-produce (not just stock, PRODUCE) ,whenever you need, ~7000 kWh for the very same price!
And when you add the carbon-footprint of the storage battery, the thing turns even madder (if possible)
But, eh, Griff, i can sell you an empty bottle or barrel of water for the price of 1000 x as much water, if you want. Wouldn’t be more silly for you to buy, than storage battery.

Griff
Reply to  Mike Borgelt
October 11, 2017 7:12 am

see also
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/11/battery-storage-uptake-households-surges-grid-costs-soar/
“This is particularly the case in the major cities of Adelaide and Brisbane, says SunWiz founder and report author Warwick Johnston, where pay-back time for a small 5kWh battery can be as low as six years. And for the rest of Australia, households are looking at a pay-back period of within a decade.”

Non Nomen
Reply to  Griff
October 11, 2017 11:41 am

Such a battery has lost very much of it’s storage capacity before it is paid off. It’s a debt trap.

October 11, 2017 12:29 am

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
” As the Australian government contemplates where to go next in terms of energy policy, the best ­approach involves acknowledging that enough is enough when it comes to subsidising renewable energy. The sector has been showered with favours, including volumetric guarantees courtesy of the RET. It is time it stood on its own two feet without any preferential treatment or financial assistance. “

%d bloggers like this: