Curmudgeon,

Did you see this on Catallaxy Files?

"New Study: ‘CO2 Emissions Savings from Wind Power in the National Electricity Market (NEM)’" http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/05/06/guest-post-peter-lang-new-study-co2-emissions-savings-from-wind-power-in-the-national-electricity-market-nem/

The report is here and it is truly fascinating (and very well written):
Wheatley, 2015, "CO2 Emissions Savings from Wind Power in the National Electricity Market (NEM)" http://joewheatley.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/report.pdf

This coluld be a major scoup if you could write it up so the poublic can understand the consequences. If the public start to understand, it could put pressure on Hunt and MacFarlane to delay a decision on the revised LRET. They are about to agree to a target of 33,000 GWh for the LRET. That would mean about a 4 times increase in wind turbines by 2020.

This planet is a ball of minerals and energy, infinite to our understanding.

Humans are ants scratching around on the surface. But some of the ants believe they can control the mega-climate by taxing a trace (life-supporting) gas. We ants can now control our local climate if we build air-conditioned enclosures, but Nature can destroy any man-made structure in an instant. An earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, asteroid impact ... and bingo, we are history. Prosperity gives the chance to learn and defend our life, liberty, property and happiness, yet prosperity is being bled white by blood-sucking taxation policies. RET must be dumped into the waste bin of useless ideas - comparable to so many examples of mass hysteria which have lured shiploads of humanity onto the rocks.

Wake up Australia. Wake up.

I am sure there would be lots of people (including the Government) that would like to know where the "at least $1 billion in federal funds each year that are intended to finance large-scale renewable projects" sit. The reality is there is no such funding associated with the RET or any other programs around large-scale renewable energy.

I am afraid this article seems largely bereft of facts.

Greg Hunt's speach yesterday includes these snippets:

"Labor's 15.4 billion carbon tax"

"Through its various industry assistance packages associated with the carbon tax, Labor allocated over $30 billion of taxpayers’ money to underpin the carbon tax. The taxpayers paid the tax through higher electricity prices, then they paid the polluters to keep polluting."

"Most amazingly, there was $5.5 billion in no strings attached payments to brown coal generators to keep operating."

"Third, contrary to the claims of some, it was not cost-free to the Budget. The carbon tax came with $30 billion in budget or balance sheet-based expenditure, which I have outlined in an attachment to this speech. This is more than ten times the investment involved in the Emissions Reduction Fund. "

http://www.greghunt.com.au/Home/LatestNews/tabid/133/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3270/Speech--2nd-Emissions-Reduction-Fund-Summit.aspx

Well, I never before heard something critiqued for being too efficient! Too costly, maybe? Which probably applies to most renewable!?

Except say very large scale solar thermal projects; which has costless fuel and now competes successfully with coal; and as 24/7 base load power!

Or (half price)carbon free Thorium energy connected to micro grids; and or, (quarter price) carbon neutral domestic biogas projects, which include scrubbers, bladder storage, ceramic fuel cells and endless free hot water.

We need to replace far costlier national grid power, with very localized and vastly cheaper power!

All have large workforce requirements initially! And most of the lost mining jobs can and should be replaced by locally manufactured; exportable thorium plants/biogas> improved ceramic fuel cell projects/gas powered electric cars/trucks/trains/trams/tractors?

And given locally sourced indigenous sweet light crude produces 75% less carbon from wellhead to vehicle exhaust, we should therefore preference that, than much dirtier fully imported liquid fuel.

And for a number of reasons; the first being in common use, it produces just a quarter of the carbon created in total, of fully imported fuel.

Even if that includes limited DRILLING on the REEF!

And given the ease of recovery, possibly for less than $10.00 a barrel?

And or, even cheaper NG, which produces even less carbon; 40% less!

And given the local product costs far less and in common use, produces far less TOTAL carbon! Why the hell not!?

We could use compressed air as a commuting fuel, but all too often these "GOOD" ideas fail to include the cost of compressing the air and the carbon produced as the first consequence.

Even replacing the car with a bike or running shoes produces bottom line carbon, which equates to all energy output regardless of the source; horses/bullocks.

Something, can't see the forest for the trees, gullible greens inevitably overlook!

And city dwellers (which includes most greens) produce 2.5 times the amount of carbon of their country cousins!

Lifts, pumps, street lights, and ubiquitous public transport!

And it seems, fight the hardest to prevent rational cost effective ideas/implementation, from reducing that output!
Rhrosty.

Peter - I'm pushed just now, but I will look at those links.. tnks..