Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk. Source US Department of Defence, Public Domain.

Surprise: Queensland’s Green Left Government is On Track to MISS Their Climate Targets

Essay by Eric Worrall

“Progress has been glacial” – In 2017 Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk pledged to cut CO2 emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. Fast Forward to 2022, Queensland’s coal power plants are still going full steam, propping up the faltering green power grids of Southern states.

Queensland climate change targets in doubt

Marty Silk 12:13pm, May 30

Queensland has one of the hardest paths to net zero.

Australia’s biggest carbon polluter depends on fossil fuel to keep the lights on and pay the bills.

Drastic action that would steer the path to energy stability is a politically and economically volatile proposition, just as inertia is as climate deteriorates.

Yet the clock is ticking on Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s 2017 climate pledges.

By 2030, emissions will be 30 per cent below 2005 levels, she has promised, along with a 50 per cent renewable energy target.

Progress has been glacial.

Energy Minister Mick de Brenni promises the 2030 energy blueprint will come in September.

He’s adamant the plan will be a win-win for consumers, industry, investors and climate.

“Queenslanders will continue to have access to affordable, reliable energy powering more jobs and more industries,” Mr de Brenni says.

Yet, the minister is ambiguous about eight coal-fired power plants that belch almost half the state’s emissions.

He says none will close but some could be converted into battery or hydrogen hubs.

Read more: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/qld/2022/05/30/queensland-climate-change-targets-doubt/

The reason none of the coal power plants will close is, despite years of green enthusiasm, the state of Queensland still can’t live without them. For example, a single major failure at the Queensland Callide Coal Plant last year caused massive disruption to the network.

The funny part is, the Queensland State Government keeps claiming the state is “renewable ready”. The Queensland government is waiting by the phone for investors to call, to take advantage of all the glorious opportunities they have provided. But if the claim of “glacial” progress is true, that phone isn’t ringing.

Queensland is Renewable Ready

It’s an exciting time to be in Queensland.

If you need clean energy to power what you do, Queensland’s the place to get it.

Queensland’s combination of significant renewable resources – we have over 300 days of sunshine each year, an abundance of new economy minerals, world class ports, long-standing trading partnerships, our proximity to Asian markets, and a government ready to work with you to seize this opportunity, all position Queensland to play a significant role in the world’s future need for renewable energy powered supply chains.

Queensland is investing heavily in renewable energy and has committed to achieving zero net emissions by 2050. Already a number of projects across the state are providing more renewable energy into the grid, helping create jobs and add more opportunities to the state’s economy.

Because of this investment, Queensland is becoming a destination of choice for manufacturers and project proponents who want to decarbonise their supply chains and draw on renewable energy to fuel their work.

Already, we’ve partnered with industry to deliver cleaner manufacturing, including a dedicated multi-signatory statement of cooperation for Central Queensland.

With an ambitious agenda for growing more jobs in more industries, the Queensland Government is working to facilitate investment that will ensure the state seizes its opportunity to become a renewable energy superpower.

Read more: https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/industry/queensland-is-renewable-ready

Why is Queensland lagging so badly on their net zero plan, when we have “300 days of sunshine each year”? Why aren’t investors rushing in to put their own money into making Queensland a “renewable energy superpower”?

In my opinion, the reason for the “glacial” progress, the reason investors are not rushing in to fulfil the Queensland Government’s Net Zero fantasies is, 300 days of sunlight is not 365 days. Investors know that power demand on those 65 missing days, and on most nights, will need to be filled by fossil fuel generators. During sunless periods power prices will skyrocket – fossil fuel operators will jack prices up, to make up for all the money they didn’t make on sunny days, when they were playing second fiddle to renewables.

Everyone knows what this will do to electricity prices

President Obama, whatever his faults, told the truth about the cost of renewable energy, and what renewables would do to end user energy prices. But as far as I know he was the last green politician to be honest about the cost.

Queensland, much of Australia, has fallen for the lie that renewables will lower energy prices. But eventually Queensland voters and everyone else will tire of waiting for that cheap electricity to arrive. And green entrepreneurs in my opinion are well aware that when this day of reckoning comes, they run a serious risk of losing whatever capital they invested in Queensland’s Net Zero green energy revolution.

There is a solution – the Queensland Government guarantor all the investment capital. But then how do they justify private entrepreneurs keeping all the profit, if taxpayers are effectively carrying the risk? Nevertheless, unless the government provides an unassailably guaranteed return on capital and investment, my prediction is progress towards Net Zero will continue to be “glacial”.

4.7 13 votes
Article Rating
87 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 31, 2022 2:39 am

“Queensland’s Green Left Government is On Track to MISS Their Climate Targets”

Not according to the arithmetic in the cited report:

“Carbon pollution had been reduced 13.7 per cent by 2021, according to the federal Department of Industry and the Clean Energy Regulator.

Meanwhile, 20.1 per cent of energy consumed came from renewables this month, according to the OpenNEM website.”

That is 13.7% in four years, chasing 30% in 13 years. 4/13*30=9.2, so that seems to be well ahead. And 4/13*50% would be 15%. OK, in the latter case they didn’t start from 0% in 2017, but it still seems the target is within reach.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 31, 2022 12:04 pm

Plus, Eric, Nick suffers from selective quotation syndrome: “Professor Ian MacKenzie, a University of Queensland economist, says a common theme of the state’s plans is the lack of any regulation. He warns that given the pace thus far, the government is unlikely to reach any of its climate targets if it continues to bank on incentives and voluntary measures. “If you really want to change behaviour, you need to make it cost,” Prof Mackenzie says.”

And all governments are keen on increasing costs to voters. The whole thing is bullshit political posturing, NGO Leftist ideology increasingly funded by insane Western billionaires and crony capitalist propaganda. It is now hurting average people and they are beginning to take notice.

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 3:26 am

What’s carbon pollution?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Lrp
May 31, 2022 5:21 am

Yeah?

Mr.
Reply to  Lrp
May 31, 2022 10:27 am

When you pollute the C with O.
Obviously.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 3:26 am

Carbon is not a pollutant, and neither is CO2.

Reply to  Oldseadog
May 31, 2022 3:47 am

It is the report Eric cited, not me.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 4:06 am

Yes, I know, I’m not suggesting it was you.

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 5:35 am

“Carbon pollution ——–.”

Then why did you copy-paste something that you knew was total garbage, and use it to back up your comment?

Reply to  b.nice
May 31, 2022 2:53 pm

It’s from Eric’s article. He copy-pasted it to back up his claim.

Herbert
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 8:12 pm

Nick,
Can we concentrate on the phrase “ carbon pollution” without being sidetracked on the copy-paste issue.
Here is Dr.Alan Finkel, retired Australian Chief Scientist, from his essay “ Getting to Zero” in the April,2021 edition of the Quarterly Essay.-
“A brief digression on carbon dioxide.
It is not a pollutant. Calling it a pollutant runs the risk of trivialising the toxic effects of true pollutants.
Carbon dioxide is not toxic.
It is a product of human metabolism and we exhale it at more than 100 times concentration than is found in the atmosphere.
In the reverse cycle, plants absorb carbon dioxide to use as the feedstock for photosynthesis.
Carbon dioxide is a fundamental part of our lifecycle, but it also happens to be a greenhouse gas.”
As an aside, it is a shame that the majority of the US Supreme Court did not address this when in a 5/4 majority they used a “ capacious definition” of “pollutant” in the Clean Air Act to hold that CO2 is a pollutant in Massachusetts v. EPA opening the door for the perverse endangerment ruling by the EPA.
Dr.Finkel then discusses the Greenhouse effect.
In doing so, he fails to recognise what is now evident in AR6 namely that the IPCC definition of GHE is both ambiguous and confusing.
In AR6, the IPCC defines the GHE in several ways.
It is the overall effect due to the presence of GH gases in the atmosphere (p1-37).
It is also the additional warming caused by CO2 increasing in the atmosphere before or after adding feedback to that warming (pp.7-65 & 7-66).
Lastly, it is the difference between incoming radiation from the Sun and outgoing radiation(pp.7-17 and 7-61).
(h/t Andy May in “The Great Climate Change Debate”p.219, ‘Defining the Greenhouse Effect’.)

Vuk
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 3:38 am

About 96% of human body (by mass) is made of four key elements:
Oxygen 65 %
Carbon 18.5 %
Hydrogen 9.5 %
Nitrogen 3.3 %
So go ahead and rid your body of the evil carbon

Reply to  Vuk
May 31, 2022 11:28 am

The O and H are high because cells are bags of water. Humans without the water are mostly carbon.

Vuk
Reply to  David Wojick
May 31, 2022 11:43 am

In case of the catastrophists of late, more like the bags of BS.

Climate Heretic
Reply to  Vuk
May 31, 2022 8:54 pm

An interesting piece of information from an article mentioned on https://www.thoughtco.com/how-much-of-your-body-is-water-609406

The amount of water in the human body ranges from 45-75%.[1] The average adult human body is 50-65% water, averaging around 57-60%.

The percentage of water in infants is much higher, typically around 75-78% water, dropping to 65% by one year of age.[2]

Regards
Climate Heretic

[1] Ohashi, Yashushi, Ken Sakai, Hiroki Hase, and Nobuhiko Joki. “Dry weight targeting: The art and science of conventional hemodialysis.” Seminars in Dialysis, vol. 31, no. 6, 2018, p. 551–556, doi:10.1111/sdi.12721
[2] Jéquier, E., and F. Constant. “Water as an essential nutrient: the physiological basis of hydration.” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 64, 2010, p. 115–123, doi:10.1038/ejcn.2009.111

CoRev
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 4:06 am

Nick and the other renewables-warriors, please answer this statement: Unexpected drops-offs are routine to wind and solar, that is why they need fossil back-up.
Wind and solar need fossil, fossil does not need wind and solar.

The cost pricing corollary to this is: Adding renewables to a grid always add costs and/or prices

willem post
Reply to  CoRev
May 31, 2022 6:23 am

EXCERPT from

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging

This article has eight parts

Solar electricity increases with the rising sun, is maximal around midday, and decreases with the setting sun.
 
The Owners of traditional generating plants, to avoid grid disturbances, are required by ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, to reduce their outputs when solar is present, which decreases their annual production, kWh/y, and increases their costs, c/kWh, plus increases wear and tear of their plants, i.e., those services are not “for free”.
 
Electric grids with many solar systems have major midday solar output bulges, that are counteracted by the traditional power plants reducing their outputs. Combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, perform almost all of counteracting (aka balancing) of the variable wind and solar outputs.

Those plants have to increase their outputs during the peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, when solar will have gone to sleep until about 8 or 9 AM the next morning.

Bryan A
Reply to  willem post
May 31, 2022 8:12 am

Solar is Nil until about 8am then quickly ramps up to nameplate by 10am, remains relatively stable (barring Clouds and Tree Shade) at nameplate capacity until 2pm then quickly drops off until about 4pm where tsunami back to Nil. Solar only produces Nameplate Capacity for 4 hours per day otherwise it’s practically useless unless you invest in Tracking Bases (which also use electricity) and totally useless for 14 – 16 hours a day

CoRev
Reply to  Bryan A
May 31, 2022 9:13 am

Bryan A & willem post, your comments confirm: “Unexpected drops-offs are routine to wind and solar, …” so I’m unsure of their points relative to my post.

I was hoping some of the renewables-warriors would respond to why the claim: “Adding renewables to a grid always add costs and/or prices”

willem post
Reply to  CoRev
May 31, 2022 2:18 pm

Linearly adding additional wind and solar capacity, MW, to the grid, will exponentially increase costs, especially when huge battery systems enter the fray.

Germany has already experienced that, but low-cost natural gas and oil from Russia has dampened the cost increases.

THAT LA-LA-LAND SITUATION HAS COME TO AN END BIG-TIME, due to:

1) increased inflation rates,

2) increased interest rates,

3) supply chain disruptions,

4) increased energy prices, such as oil, gas, coal, etc., and

5) increased materials prices, such as of Tungsten, Cobalt, Lithium, and Copper

willem post
Reply to  Bryan A
May 31, 2022 2:10 pm

Bryan,

To nameplate?
No!
To 80% of nameplate around midday, because of various losses, much lesser percentages at other times.

Solar is ABSENT/NODDING OFF during the peak hours of late-afternoon/early-evening, and ASLEEP until about 9 AM the next day.

What kind of BS continuous power is that?

Solar is totally useless, without the other generators, and/or HUGE capacity battery systems. See my article.

Reply to  CoRev
May 31, 2022 2:27 pm

“Wind and solar need fossil, fossil does not need wind and solar.
The cost pricing corollary to this is: Adding renewables to a grid always add costs and/or prices”

No. What you leave out is that fossil does need increasingly expensive fossil fuel. Wind and sun are still free. And whenever used, they replace FF that you then don’t need to pay for.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 5:12 pm

Nick, you’re old enough to know that NOTHING in life is free.

With wind & solar, their potential has to be harnessed, stored & delivered, all of which costs big-time.

If it was, as you say, FREE, nobody would have to pay anything for it, and taxpayer subsidies certainly wouldn’t be needed.

Vincent
Reply to  Mr.
June 1, 2022 4:39 am

We’ve been through this before. It’s the source of energy from the sun which is free. However, converting the free energy from the sun into electricity is obviously not free. Solar panels are not free. No-one is claiming that.

Also, I don’t think it’s true that nothing in life is free. How much do you pay for the oxygen you breathe in 24 hours a day? It’s free, isn’t it? Another example is Vitamin D, which is essential for good health and a strong immune system. You can get it from the sun, free. All you have to do is take off some of your clothes and expose yourself to the sun for about half an hour, or a full hour, each day, without sunscreen lotion.

Duker
Reply to  Vincent
June 2, 2022 2:02 am

It’s free but can’t do any work in the energy sense. Geothermal or hydro has a free source of ‘fuel’ but has some costs for that to become energy in a ac power grid

Mike
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 5:47 pm

Wind and are still free”

Only to dry clothes and get a tan.

CoRev
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 1, 2022 4:29 am

“Wind and sun are still free. And whenever used, they replace FF that you then don’t need to pay for.” FREE still needs back up, so FREE is built upon the fossil-nuclear fueled generator grid back bone. Since they are NEW REPLACEMENT sources they and all their developmental and operational infrastructures are also new to the grid as are their costs.

The mistake made here is in the assumption of replacement of existing generation sources. They do only replace partially. Percentage of the partial replacements ranges from Zero to 100%, therefore the grid’s status reverts to the pre-renewables condition before their inclusion. If that condition was adequate to supply demand, then adding renewables was unneeded and added costs.

Since renewables are intermittent and when in periods of reduced output, the fossil-nuclear fueled generators are carrying the grid load. The only cost discussion during these periods is what percentage of those renewables developmental and production costs are incurred.

We recently had an article discussing this paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4000800 here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/20/what-is-the-full-cost/ Did you participate then?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 1, 2022 4:36 am

Wind and solar are not “free” – the infrastructure you need to access the energy from wind and solar is very expensive and has a relatively short working life.
But you knew that, didn’t you? I would have expected better than that from you.

Chris Nisbet
Reply to  CoRev
May 31, 2022 9:54 pm

I suppose that wind/solar only need backup if you actually want to keep the power on when they’re not producing any electricity.
I’m not sure how well they can deal l with powering up a dead grid though. I suspect not very well at all.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 4:26 am

Nick,
You are assuming that all actions require the same degree of effort and that all efforts produce the same measured result.
My experience of life shows me otherwise.
YMMV

observa
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 5:21 am

Wakey wakey Nick-
Why Australia needs to create a renewable storage target | RenewEconomy

The climate changers and their weather dependent unreliables need storage big time to get rid of coal and gas and not more of their spaghetti and meatballs grid expense. Trouble is the pips are squeaking with struggletown’s power bills already and the battery expense required is awful and getting dearer as the top end of town gobble the battery resources with lux EVs.

Bryan A
Reply to  observa
May 31, 2022 7:00 am

Where do the materials come from to build Grid Scale Storage Batteries when it is needed to create EV batteries?
Where do materials needed to create EV batteries come from when it is needed to create Grid Scale Storage Batteries?

observa
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 5:36 am

The penny is beginning to drop with even your favourite rag-
Focus on battery storage could be a cost-effective energy goal for Albanese government, report says (msn.com)

“It’s conceivable, perhaps even likely, that it might ultimately lower costs,” McConnell said. “But given the current retail price movements, it’s a politically challenging environment to advocate for potentially adding a surcharge to bills.”

You can say that again boyoh.

CoRev
Reply to  observa
June 1, 2022 4:31 am

Even another example of how renewables add costs.

fretslider
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 5:53 am

Carbon pollution”

And you’ll breathe out approximately 11.5 kg of it today and every day.

How dare you.

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 31, 2022 10:51 pm

Your maths is dorked or is this a special Stokes definition?

2005 to 2021 is not 4 years its 16 years about 1% per year .. they are going to miss by a country mile.

Now lets also add QLD are cooking the books which all governments do .. lets talk numbers from say Carbon Brief

“Queensland’s energy-related emissions, which includes power generation, transport and manufacturing, have risen 26.8 per cent since 2005. Emissions caused by changes in land use and forestry have plummeted 75 per cent.”

One mans Emission reduction is another mans Emission increase it’s all in the definition hey 🙂

Last edited 2 months ago by LdB
Craig from Oz
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 1, 2022 12:13 am

Maths.

The target is 30% below the magic number of 2005

The reduction of ‘Carbon Pollution’ – whatever that is – 13.7%

These numbers are not the same things.

Let us say the 2005 was 100 units.

30% below is 70 units.

Now let us assume the rate has increased since 2005. Let us say they got to 200 units in 2017, and were reduced, somehow, to 173 units. This is 13.5%

it is also still MUCH larger than 70 units.

Percent is the ratio per hundred. Cent being Latin for 100 or something similar. It is only useful in context of the number being discussed and cannot be just freely transferred between columns.

Another example? 100% of people called Nick Stokes are Nick Stokes, but in a group of 50 a single Nick Stokes will make up 2%.

100%
2%

Still the same Nick Stokes.

Maths. Try not to quote it out of context.

May 31, 2022 2:46 am

The sheer stupidity of these people continues to amaze me.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Derek Wood
May 31, 2022 12:18 pm

That, plus greed and ideology.

Chris Morris
May 31, 2022 2:52 am

It was a bit more than a single failure at Callide. It was 6 coal units tripped during the event then five came back over a period of weeks

fretslider
May 31, 2022 3:14 am

“But then how do they justify private entrepreneurs keeping all the profit, if taxpayers are effectively carrying the risk?“

Do what Tony Blair did…. Call it a Public Private partnership.

Last edited 2 months ago by fretslider
Gary S
Reply to  fretslider
May 31, 2022 4:07 pm

Otherwise known as fascism.

Ron Long
May 31, 2022 3:16 am

This whole “Net Zero” issue has gone from misinformed to straight out dishonest.

Surrr
May 31, 2022 3:18 am

No problem, Albos on the case now. He’s energy minister Bowen said the reason power prices are rising is because there’s not enough renewables in the mix. Get ready for blackouts like we used to regularly have in the 70s in the next 3 years and for a 1 term government.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Surrr
May 31, 2022 5:25 am

“energy minister Bowen said the reason power prices are rising is because there’s not enough renewables in the mix.”

LOL!

Bowen obviously doesn’t understand the problem.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
observa
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 31, 2022 5:58 am

And these were the bozos that wanted carbon taxes so now they have the price hikes they always wanted to foster more of their solar panels and windmills-
Energy retailer tells more than 70,000 customers to go elsewhere or face doubling of prices (msn.com)

Lrp
Reply to  Surrr
June 1, 2022 3:51 am

Bowen’s a moron, but fits in nicely with Albanese.

Peter K
Reply to  Surrr
June 1, 2022 11:46 pm

Unfortunately Oz is in big trouble with the biggest nuttiest fruit cakes now running the country, after a change of government. They have declared that there will be no more “Climate Wars”, the science has been settled and they have a mandate, spend big dollars on renewables.. Also have created a new PM to address the fight for Oz to becoming a republic.

Old Man Winter
May 31, 2022 3:43 am

Queensland will miss their climate targets. Oh, the humanity!

Last edited 2 months ago by Old Man Winter
Frank from NoVA
May 31, 2022 3:49 am

‘Why is Queensland lagging so badly on their net zero plan, when we have “300 days of sunshine each year”?’

Because they have 365 nights of darkness and 65 overcast days each year?

Last edited 2 months ago by Frank from NoVA
Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
May 31, 2022 4:53 am

With holidays and vacations, the 65 overcast days shouldn’t be a problem. The companies and workers just need to get used to a 5 minute warning for their “floating holidays” and mandatory vacation days.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
May 31, 2022 7:28 am

Excellent suggestion! As for the inconvenience of living on a diurnal planet, they can just go into full North Korea mode at night.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
May 31, 2022 12:23 pm

Those are only minor parts of the Leftists’ Demand Side Management Plans. To paraphrase a popular meme: You will control nothing and be happy.

RobK
May 31, 2022 4:52 am

The low hanging fruit in the march to mitigate CO2 emissions have been picked.
From easing wobbly weather powered generators into the grid without complete redesign, to various silviculture ventures that fill niche spots in agriculture, there’s no scope for massive replacement for our dependence on the carbon cycle. Ultimately any advances will track an incremental path whether there’s legislative pressure or not. Forcing the issue will only drive up costs.

Vuk
May 31, 2022 4:53 am

OT: Latest on the rebel Stuart Kirk
Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive of L&G one of the HSBC’s biggest shareholders has given indirect backing to Mr. Kirk.
Sir Nigel Wilson said it is “very good to have a debate about climate change policy and the part British companies should play in the transition to a low-carbon economy.”
Good on him and the investors hero Stuart.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/29/top-hsbc-investor-backs-free-speech-climate-nut-job-banker-suspended/

Fraizer
Reply to  Vuk
May 31, 2022 5:11 am

“…the part British companies should play in the transition to a low-carbon economy…”

The red flag is that CO2 reductions seem to be presumed as necessary/inevitable.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Fraizer
May 31, 2022 5:31 am

Yes, and Sir Nigel doesn’t seem to know the difference between Carbon and CO2. So it’s not knowledge that fills his head but climate change propaganda.

Vuk
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 31, 2022 5:49 am

Looks like it,but what is important here that the free speech debate is encouraged and essential.
Once the financial and other pitfalls of ‘zero carbon’ become obvious, the unrestricted debate in financial circles will soon swing against this ridiculous and suicidal ideology.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Vuk
May 31, 2022 12:37 pm

Vuk, every executive quoted essentially stated Nutty Zero cannot be questioned by anybody in their organizations. The only debate allowed is how and to what extent the companies support centralized (elitist) government and large-company control of the economy for those companies’ own profit, especially as it relates to climate ideology. This is simply misdirection aimed at placating the masses.

dodgy geezer
May 31, 2022 5:13 am

MISS their targets? Is anyone surprised?

If they HIT their target, and eradicated CO2 from all Australian activity, WHAT funding would there be for their groups?

Climate Change is a protest movement – not a coherent proposal for an alternative way of living. The LAST thing the supra-national bureaucracies running this scam want is for everyone to cut their consumption and live off any land no further than 5 miles from their place of birth. Where would the year-long round of parties conferences be then?

What they want is a continuous panic about missing targets, so they can generate yet another highly-paid working party for their friends and relatives….

Spetzer86
May 31, 2022 5:16 am

How does a “path to energy stability” and renewable energy figure into the same sentence? Seems like nobody in power ever looks at what they’re doing when it come to RE.

fretslider
May 31, 2022 5:22 am

Progress has been glacial.”

In the UK, apparently, there is battery back-up, who knew? I didn’t.

Alex O’Cinneide, chief executive of Gore Street Capital, said the investment manager was pleased to see the GB portfolio matching the same levels of revenues with other market participants with longer battery durations. “We continue to base our strategy on current market conditions and revenue streams and therefore continue to favour one-hour battery systems for the GB market. We believe this results in substantial cost efficiencies and has significantly rewarded our shareholders.”

Gore Street Energy Storage Fund PLC battery portfolio performs better than expected in Q4 (proactiveinvestors.com)

Maybe Stuart Kirk has an idea?

I must enquire why it’s called Gore Street Capital.

I hour? FFS

Old Man Winter
Reply to  fretslider
May 31, 2022 5:40 am

We continue to base our strategy on current market conditions and revenue streams and therefore continue to favour one-hour battery systems for the GB market.”

It’s called risk management- you lose less $$$ if 1-hr batteries catch fire than with 2-hr batteries!

fretslider
Reply to  Old Man Winter
May 31, 2022 5:56 am

“Maybe Stuart Kirk has an idea?”

He’s a, er, risk management guy, no?

Last edited 2 months ago by fretslider
Dave Andrews
Reply to  Old Man Winter
May 31, 2022 7:41 am

Plus you need thousands of those 1 hour battery systems to begin to cope with a week long windless spell 🙂

BobM
Reply to  fretslider
May 31, 2022 1:57 pm

These short-term battery systems are not there for backup so much as FCAS and electriticy market price arbitrage. That’s how they make their money, charge the batteries cheaply when solar is over-producing, then sell it back, same day, usually hours later for 2-3 X more, which easily covers energy losses. That and FCAS (batteries are faster than governors) are where their revenue comes from.

Mr.
Reply to  BobM
May 31, 2022 2:33 pm

Just higher capacity uninterruptible power supply devices.

DHR
May 31, 2022 5:43 am

They must be counting on those DEFRs from New York State.

Last edited 2 months ago by DHR
Michael in Dublin
May 31, 2022 6:06 am

Among the greens there is no shortage of hypocrisy.

I am sure Obama and his ilk are applauding the offer of Texas – of all places – to subsidize electric cars. Look at the fine print: it is top of the range models (Bentley, BMW, Porsche and Mercedes Benz) and will benefit the “poor” elites. This is why all these green policies will be such a stunning success.

Old Retired Guy
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 31, 2022 6:51 am

I’m from Texas. What are you talking about?

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Old Retired Guy
May 31, 2022 9:10 am

Old Guy

I was perhaps a little misleading because it is the rebate that Texas is offering on a range of electric cars for purchase or hire. These are unaffordable for most except the rich elites who certainly do not need a rebate and certainly not for the most expensive.

We have the same lunacy here but the rebate is more than double that of rich Texas. The ordinary taxpayer ends up with a disproportionate burden to fund these government schemes.

markl
May 31, 2022 7:35 am

They don’t care as long as some damage is done to the economy. They know the goals can’t be met. The only ‘tipping point’ they’re interested in is when the economy is beyond repair so they can step in and ‘save’ it with their ideology.

Christopher Chantrill
May 31, 2022 9:30 am

I did the math the other day. If CO2 conentration is 400 part per million, that is not 4 percent of the atmosphere, not 0.4 percent, but 0.04 percent. Or, if you prefer, 1 in 2,500.

Can you spell trace gas? And this will end the planet as we know it?

I gotta bridge…

ResourceGuy
May 31, 2022 9:39 am

But they mean well…all the way to your bank.

Mr.
May 31, 2022 10:51 am

If we haven’t worked it out by now, we’re all dumb as a box of rocks –

measuring / accounting for anthropogenic CO2 contributions to the atmosphere is nothing more than a very simplistic Accrual Accounting trick.

Just make up numbers for “provisions”, “contingencies”, “forecasts” etc and keep adjusting them, changing them to keep results reports ahead of reality.

The rubes who call themselves “journalists” will never question CO2 accounting reports for fear they will expose their lack of knowledge & comprehension.

BobM
May 31, 2022 1:59 pm

What they really need is a demonstration project, to show how it is to be done in Queensland without coal. Simple, yet presumably not in their vocabulary yet.

Robber
May 31, 2022 2:45 pm

According to OpenNEM, in 2015 Qld generated 60,100 GWh of electricity, solar 3.3%, wind 0%, hydro 0.9%, coal 82.6%, with 7.7% exported to NSW. Average price $61/MWhr.
Back in 2005, solar and wind zero, coal 93.3% average price $25/MWhr.
In 2021, generation was 62,500 GWh, solar 14.2%, wind 2.9%, hydro 1.7%, coal 75.2%, with 4.1% exported to NSW. Average price $120/MWhr, and in 2022 $318/MWhr. In the middle oft he day, solar provides up to 50% of demand, but every night zero.
So yes, that “nasty” coal-based generation is declining, but at what cost?

CoRev
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 1, 2022 4:38 am

“Effectively the extra charges represent the cost of paying for two parallel systems, when previously we only paid for one.” Exactly as I said. They always add costs.

J.R.
May 31, 2022 10:10 pm

Renewable energy is an existential threat to a stable energy supply.

J.R.
May 31, 2022 10:13 pm

 a renewable energy superpower.”

That is an oxymoron.

observa
June 1, 2022 2:09 am

It’s a funny old political world-
South Australian government axes Home Battery Scheme, saving money in state budget (msn.com)
Although the unreliables desperately need storage the State Labor Govt are right to scrap subsidies for backyard batteries. Shocking vs plain awful cost wise at that level of implementation. The previous Govt did it as a sop to the climate changers and let that be a lesson to rational conservatives. OTOH they junked the Adelaide 500 V8 race as a sop to leafy Eastern burb elites disturbing their ambience and Labor said thanks very much for pissing off the majority-
Start your engines: Tenders to open for Adelaide 500 | Premier of South Australia

Left is right and up is down or whatever you want to make of it all. LOL.

June 1, 2022 9:55 am

Emissions reduction grabs the low hanging fruit first. The 20% of the grid that can be wind/solar.

Drawing a straight line from 20% implies that you will be fully wind/solar in just 5x longer.

The reality is that it is exponentially harder to pick the fruit high in the branches. Past experience is no guarantee of future performance.

Gary Pearse
June 1, 2022 2:34 pm

“green entrepreneurs in my opinion are well aware that when this day of reckoning comes, they run a serious risk of losing whatever capital they invested …”

The energy trainwreck in Europe isnt going unnoticed. Dozens of Green entrepreneurs have gone bankrupt. Many windfarms have reached end of life and there doesn’t seem to be much enthusiasm for their replacement. It’s hard to find the link that noted peak renewables in Europe was in 2017!

Europe’s deep, self-inflicted wounds in energy, agriculture and other major sectors of the economy, threatens the very lives of 10s of millions of their citizens. Europeans (including UK) and Biden (to shore up his miserable popularity rating) welcomed the war in Ukraine as a scape goat for the fallout of the most reckless policies of the least talented heads of state the world has known.

Without the war, disaster was assured. They had already succeeded in crippling the O&G industry with cutting off investment funds, punishing regulations, restricting access to resources, etc. before realizing what this would do to costs of renewables that dont work without cheap fossil fuel backup! And they did all this when renewables had achieved only 10-15% of total energy requirements and intermittent at that!

With the war they have been given two gifts, someone else to blame for their ineptitude, and an excuse to stop the foolishness, they say to pause it, we know that it’s all over. The Queensland green investors know it, too.

Bob Close
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 2, 2022 12:28 pm

Gary, some nice thoughts there but I would not get too positive about a reasonable outcome of the climate/energy wars in Europe and UK. The environmental/ecological/socialist movement is deeply entrenched there and they will fight hard to attain or retain their sense of climate and social elitism. We scientifically trained climate realists know it’s only a matter of time until the public understands that they have been conned by the climate alarmist lobby into believing there is an immanent emergency related to CO2 warming of the atmosphere.
They believe that changing the climate to save the planet is the responsible and morally correct thing to do despite the uncertainties and so will take pains to achieve this laudable but illusionary goal.

However, we already know the scientific evidence (mostly not disputed by IPCC scientists) conclusively shows there is no such problem, but to prove it to the movers and shakers who don’t want to listen, is the current issue for us. There is so much money in the climate economy, people don’t want to have to give up their gravy train, be it academics or renewable energy investors or the radical Green New Deal people.

You are correct, the current European war have provided a strong dose of reality to the EU society and NATO partners about their energy mix and energy poverty, that is part and parcel of their suicidal Net Zero policies. I believe they will have to take a big hit to their energy economy and create massive social poverty before sanity returns, and France in particular may end up being top dog due to their nuclear bolster.
In the meantime we can only hope the climate alarmists don’t take the rest of the developed world down with them. There are ominous signs in Australia of the dislocation of aspirations and reality over climate, with entrenched green tinged bureaucracies itching to legislate the shut down the fossil fuel economy, from the comfort of their inner city ghettos where they mistakenly think they will be unaffected by the coming energy poverty they deliberately create.

Kevin Stall
June 2, 2022 5:13 am

Those 65 days tend to clump together. So no sun between cloudy days necessarily. I went from alaska to Western Australia from 265 days of cloud. To 300+ days of sunshine. Solar can make sense in Australia but not necessarily in the rest of the world. Works for Az but not Washington state.

%d bloggers like this: