This seems to be saying we need to burn stuff to ward off another Ice Age. Too bad if we run out of stuff to burn. Those greenhouses elevate internal CO2 in winter then open the vents in summer. I suspect urban sprawl consumes more good farmland than wind and solar farms. The irony is more people need more food but make it harder to produce food.

I agree that wind and solar farms are a blot on the landscape. For most of May 2024 wind power was minimal at times like 400 MW out of 11,000 MW. Yet they stood there like uninvited statues while out of sight gas plants made up the deficit. One day it will be a crisis.

https://youtu.be/_-OX-ZNAN-I

Hello Taswegian. It would be better to communicate person-to-person so I know who I am talking to.
Nowhere did we say ‘we need to burn off stuff to ward off another Ice Age’. Ice Ages come and go regardless of the activities of mere mortals. Planet Earth is a ball of minerals and energy, and the best we can do is to use the relatively puny amounts we can access in order to survive and give our descendants the best system and tools to help them survive. We will never run out of anything (eg Loy Yang brown coal reserves are estimated at 168 billion tonnes that they are currently mining at 30 million tonnes per annum). Reserves in the rich Bowen Basin are still being discovered after 50 years of mining since I stood on the Hay Point Berth at 1.30 am one morning after a rather tense commissioning to oversee the first lumps of coal drop into the hold of a Japanese bulk carrier, the first of 1 billion tonnes of coal since exported from this terminal. The vast Galilee Basin has scarcely been scratched. Fossil fuel reserves are mind-boggling figures. Use of unjustly maligned fossil fuels has given mankind unprecedented well-being and ability to mitigate the impact of extreme natural events. Fossil fuels have given us breathing space to develop better and more efficient power sources. Technology can continually improve, if we don’t go back to living in caves to where the mass madness of net zero targets is leading.

Nice article. Like many catastrophists, the disaster is not from their predictions but of their own making. Personally I like the fun fact that humanity would become destitute and nearly all would die were the use of fossil fuels to cease. The sad side is that every Australian will suffer from the economic catastrophe following from the insane pursuit of net zero with wind and solar.

A warmer climate means more water in the atmosphere and more rain. There is research being done suggesting that such a change might be an improvement.

People fall into one of two categories, masochistic or sadistic.

It’s sadist driving the climate change agenda onto the subservient masochistic masses.

The curse of politics and sadistic politicians, will hasten the demise of our society in painful and disruptive ways, as only wars can!

"Taswegian" should look at John McRobert's bio to see who he is dealing with.

Gabriel Moens and John McRobert have penned a misleading article full of flawed analogies and unsupported claims.

Climate policies aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote sustainable practices, and ensure long-term economic stability. Research shows that shifting to renewable energy can create jobs, cut health costs from pollution, and foster innovation, debunking the idea that these policies harm industry and commerce.

Achieving Net Zero emissions is both feasible and essential to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The IPCC outlines clear paths to Net Zero, and many countries and businesses are making significant progress. Comparing climate science to historical delusions, as described by Charles Mackay, ignores the robust scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, supported by organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the WHO.

Transitioning to a low-carbon economy can drive economic growth. Investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable technologies create jobs, lower energy costs, and enhance energy security. The risks of not addressing climate change pose a far greater threat to economic stability, such as higher costs from extreme weather events, health impacts, and biodiversity loss.

The claim that high levels of CO2 benefit plant growth is a gross oversimplification. While CO2 is essential for photosynthesis, the negative impacts of climate change (such as extreme weather, altered precipitation patterns, and increased pests and diseases) outweigh any potential benefits. Ecosystems and agricultural systems are adapted to current CO2 levels, and rapid changes disrupt these systems.

The article also cites independent studies supposedly disproving the link between CO2 and climate change. Yet peer-reviewed research is far more reliable, and it overwhelmingly supports the connection between CO2 and climate change.

Renewable energy sources like solar and wind have a significantly smaller environmental footprint compared to fossil fuels. Land use for renewable energy can be managed sustainably, with technology continuously improving efficiency and reducing land requirements. Renewable energy also reduces pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, leading to healthier ecosystems and communities.

No Dan, it isn't limited to politicians. It is people who believe themselves correct beyond measure, with all others at least wrong, or worse, evil.

I'm watching South Australia: A failure to realise the ambition of 100% renewables by 2027 might end the odyssey, but given the intention to build a wind and solar system several times the cost of nuclear, I suspect that the zealots will dig their heels in.

Hi John,

"Research shows that shifting to renewable energy can create jobs, cut health costs from pollution, and foster innovation, debunking the idea that these policies harm industry and commerce."

That might be the glowing new world you learn about from the climate cultists, but I live in the real world. The economic and environmental harm from pursuing renewable energy is real, and I'm sure that the many people who have lost businesses and jobs might feel somewhat conflicted having you tell them that they are all better off because the research says so.

Reality is king, John, and it isn't supporting your story. A prosperous nation is founded on cheap and dispatchable energy. Wind and solar are neither.

Fester,

Reality certainly reigns, and research consistently shows that it is not on your side, with renewable energy projects creating more jobs than the fossil fuel industries.

For example, IRENA reported that the renewable energy sector employed 12 million people globally in 2020, with this number expected to grow significantly as the world transitions to cleaner energy sources. While there has been some disruption in some industries, the overall job creation potential in the renewable energy sector offsets job losses in fossil fuels. Retraining programs and new job opportunities in renewables can help ease this transition.

Moreover, numerous studies highlight the economic benefits of renewable energy, including reduced health costs due to decreased air pollution. A study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that reducing pollution from coal power plants could prevent thousands of premature deaths annually and save billions in healthcare costs. Claims that renewable energy harms the economy ignore these substantial savings and health benefits. The initial costs of transitioning to renewables are often offset by long-term savings in healthcare and environmental remediation.

Regarding energy reliability and cost, while wind and solar energy are variable, advancements in energy storage and grid management technologies are making these sources more reliable and cost-effective. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for wind and solar has dropped significantly over the past decade, making them competitive with or even cheaper than fossil fuels in many regions. The idea that wind and solar are neither cheap nor reliable is outdated. Investments in battery storage and smart grid technologies are addressing intermittency issues, enhancing the reliability of renewable energy sources.

Dismissing the well-documented benefits of renewable energy overlooks the comprehensive evidence supporting job creation, economic savings, and technological advancements. Reality and research show that renewable energy can contribute to a prosperous and sustainable future. For further reading, you can check out these sources:

IRENA Report, 2021: Renewable Energy and Jobs Annual Review.
Harvard School of Public Health Study, 2014: Clean Energy Health Benefits.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2020: Renewable Energy Market Update.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 2021: Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis.

"The idea that wind and solar are neither cheap nor reliable is outdated."
John,

Wind and solar are non-dispatchable. That is a fact and won't change.

As for the economic contribution, fossil fuels generate more than iron ore in exports, or about 20% of exports. They generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, making a huge contribution to government revenue and the economy.

In contrast, renewables represent an annual import deficit of how many billions of dollars? They cost taxpayers at least seven billion a year in taxpayer subsidies, although government tries hard to hide the figure. Then there is the economic damage from rising power costs.

Keep believing all the bs in the glossy sales brochures and "research" if you wish, but note that France built over 150% of its electricity demand with carbon free nuclear in fifteen years from the mid 1970s. Than infrastructure now earns the French billions of Euros in electricity exports annually.

Why pursue an unproven wind and solar based generation system when nuclear has a track record of doing the job reliably and at much lower cost? It's nuts. And how will South Australia get to net zero by 2027? It's currently importing over half its demand and generating nearly two thirds of its local power from gas. Total fantasy.

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem

Why do the stupid indoctrinated insist on not understanding the "renewables" folly ?
I bet no-one from the renewables camp can actually offer an explanation let alone proof of one single "renewable" component that can be produced with zero emission !

.There is no climate crisis.
.There is no evidence that carbon dioxide causes climate change (see Ian Plimer).
.No need for 'renewables', which are unreliable, expensive and a blot on landscape, as well as being a killer of birds and animals and primary production.
.No need for nuclear, either, give the time frame.
.Coal and gas are still the only reliable, inexpensive options NOW, and in the foreseeable future.
.Even the idiot Albanese government is finding out that their harebrained wankery is not going to work - after being too stupid to learn from other countries more advanced than Australia.

Agree. We should choose the nuclear option instead of all that referred to. Alan B.

The most energy dense material on the planet is thorium. Just 8 grams of thorium enough to power your house and car for 100 years.

The former oxidation problem with thorium molten salt reactors has been solved with the complete removal of moisture and oxygen from the fluoride salt and the tritium is removed by using nitrate salt as the heat exchange medium. Nitrate salt absorbs the tritium, which in context is tiny.

New high heat resistant nickel alloys can be 3D printed allowing reactor builds with an extremely low-price tag and mass production on a hitherto unknown scale.

And the other favourable factor, is unlike light water reactors. They operate at ambient air pressure. In the event of a power failure, they automatically shut down.

Dispatchable, reliable, lowest cost and safest energy on the planet.
Alan B.

".No need for nuclear, either, give the time frame."

Had Australia pursued nuclear decades ago we would not be in this mess with renewables today.

Japan has resumed its use of nuclear power over a decade after Fukushima.

https://www.power-technology.com/news/tepco-kashiwazaki-kariwa-nuclear-plant/?cf-view

Meanwhile South Australia is generating 80% of its electricity from gas and importing over 10% of its electricity demand. Brilliant, especially when one considers the prosperity that South Australians have turned their backs on by choosing a renewables future over a nuclear one.

Fester,

Your reply ignores the advancements and benefits of renewable energy technologies, their cost competitiveness, and job creation. Transitioning to renewables is both feasible and essential for sustainability.

While variable, renewables have become much more reliable thanks to advancements in energy storage and grid management. Technologies like lithium-ion batteries and emerging solid-state batteries are significantly improving energy storage. For instance, the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia has enhanced grid stability and reduced costs. Also, smart grid technologies are making the grid more resilient and reliable by balancing supply and demand through the integration of various energy sources. Over the past decade, the cost of wind and solar energy has dropped dramatically, making them competitive with, or even cheaper than, fossil fuels in many areas. According to the IEA, solar power costs have fallen by 90% and wind power by 70% since 2010.

On the economic front, renewable energy sectors are major sources of employment. From 2019 to 2022, clean energy sectors added 4.7 million jobs globally, surpassing those in fossil fuels. Countries like Germany and China, which invest heavily in renewables, benefit from lower energy import costs and the creation of a sustainable energy market. It's also worth noting that while renewables receive subsidies, fossil fuels receive substantial government support as well ($5.9 trillion in 2020 globally).

Nuclear energy, although reliable and low-carbon, faces challenges such as high initial costs, long construction times, and waste management issues. Building nuclear plants requires significant upfront investment and time, as demonstrated by the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland. Additionally, managing nuclear waste and ensuring plant safety add to the long-term costs and complexities of nuclear energy.

South Australia's energy strategy has made significant strides in integrating renewable energy, supported by battery storage and interconnectors, thereby reducing its reliance on gas and imports. The Hornsdale Power Reserve has shown how battery storage can enhance grid stability and reduce costs. Projects like the proposed SA-NSW interconnector aim to further improve energy security and reliability by linking renewable energy sources across regions.

ttbn,

The evidence that CO2 causes climate change is overwhelming and Plimer's claims have been discredited numerous times.

The Earth's climate is influenced by how it receives and emits energy. Our planet gets energy from the sun as visible light and ultraviolet rays, which warm its surface. The Earth then releases some of this energy back into space as infrared radiation, or heat. This energy exchange is crucial for maintaining the Earth's temperature.

Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and water vapor (H2O) trap some of this outgoing heat, which keeps the planet warm enough to support life. CO2 is especially effective at this because it can absorb infrared radiation. When CO2 absorbs heat, it vibrates and re-emits the energy in all directions, including back towards the Earth's surface, a process called radiative forcing, which keeps more energy in the atmosphere and leads to warming.

Radiative forcing measures the impact of greenhouse gases on the Earth's energy balance. CO2 has a significant effect. Climate sensitivity refers to the expected temperature increase from doubling CO2 levels, estimated to be between 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.

Evidence supports CO2's role in climate change. CO2 levels have risen from about 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial era to over 400 ppm today, mainly due to fossil fuel burning. Satellite and surface measurements confirm that the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere are warming. Studies of carbon isotopes show that the extra CO2 comes largely from fossil fuels.

Historical data also highlight the link between CO2 levels and global temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels and temperatures rose and fell together during glacial and interglacial periods. Modern climate models that include CO2 accurately predict observed temperature trends, unlike models excluding human-caused CO2. Future warming projections depend on CO2 emissions, with higher emissions leading to more significant warming and climate impacts.

To summarise, CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, warming the Earth. This process is well-supported by scientific principles, extensive data, and historical climate patterns.

John, how do you get past the problem of several days of low wind
flat batteries followed by several overcast days ? Or a wind drought ?
You need a backup solar & wind system larger than the main system to
get your enormous batteries recharged on the next sunny day.
Batteries will kill the economics of your system.
There is another catch, solar panels and wind turbines have a life
expectancy around 25 years, then we start again !
Has anyone done it yet ?

Just saw this on the Net, I hope it's ok with the author to post it here. It is just so to the point !

To be clear, we subsidise renewables to force coal out, subsidise coal to keep coal in, subsidise industry not to use power so we can reduce demand, and now subsidise all consumers to help them pay for the expensive power the subsidies have produced. And this is all done in the name of transitioning to renewables because they are the “cheapest form of energy” so we can become a “renewable energy superpower”.
CHRIS KENNY.

It gets worse; the Labour party is demanding that Dutton tell all
where the power stations are to be built.
That they ask such a question now indicates why their own energy plan
is in so much trouble.
Anyone with a scrap of knowledge on energy would know that no one in
Parliament would have a clue on how to answer that.
It will decided by engineers designing the system when they know how
much generation will be funded.
They need a lot more information than can be available NOW !
Blackout Bowen reveals his ignorance just by asking that question.

Hi John,

Yes, the economics of renewables look wonderful for the Chinese selling the stuff, but what are the consequences for Australia?

Did you know that Australian taxpayers are subsidising renewables to the tune of $15 billion a year? As for fossil fuel subsidies, those are mostly fuel excise tax breaks for primary producers, not subsidies given to fossil fuel companies as with renewables.

Yes, $15 billion a year from taxpayers, and for what? A dysfunctional power grid with generation systems that will need replacing every 20 to 30 years? Don't believe me? Well have a look at France going nuclear compared to Germany going wind and solar. After fifteen years the French had to stop building new reactors as they had fifty percent more generating capacity than they needed. After fifteen years Germany is generating less than fifty percent of its power from renewables and pays hundreds of millions of Euros in fines each year for its carbon emissions.

https://carboncredits.com/nuclear-education-how-germany-lost-another-world-war-to-france/

Australians need to wake up to the renewable energy con and the economic train wreck it is leading toward.

Germany is generating less than fifty percent of its power from renewables
Fester,
Germany has renewables ? No Nation has renewables because renewables only exist in the imagination of Leftists who never produced a single Watt without emission & never recycled a single component !

Well Individual, about half of Germany's renewable power comes from burning biomass, so it's under 25% from wind and solar after fifteen years. Compare that with 150% with nuclear for France done way back in the seventies and eighties. It doesn't matter what you call it, it's still a con.

And SA is currently generating seventy percent of its power from gas and importing 200 megawatts from Victoria. What a renewable energy superpower!

25% from wind and solar after fifteen years.
Fester,
Understood however, after all these years a lot of the gear would be worn out & no longer workable. What happens to the wreckage ? Will it be recycled at zero emission ? I don't think so. I don't suppose there is info on all those un-renewable components ?

Individual,

I often read comments suggesting how much nuclear power enthusiasts would like nuclear waste in their backyards, so maybe renewable power enthusiasts would be equally keen to have toxic renewable energy waste in their backyards? I sure that old turbines would make great garden borders, and I'd Trackon you could make a mean chook house from old solar panels.

Fester,
Society has been groomed to indulge excessively, that's what needs to be addressed & only that will bring down emission & reduce the impact of everything man-made including nuclear waste. If the masses were educated instead of indoctrinated we'd probably get away with not using nuclear in the first place. As things stand right now, nuclear is the most sensible solution.
No Chernobyls or Fukushimas, small, managable & controllable plants. Nuclear ships are a an example of that !

Indyvidual,

Fukushima happened because its backup diesel generators were kept in the basement and got flooded. Chernobyl happened for a few reasons, but primarily because there was no containment vessel and the nuclear engineers thought they could overcome xenon gas inhibiting a fission reaction by removing all but two of the fixed control rods (control rods designed not to be removed). One person died from radiation exposure at Fukushima (lung cancer).

Are you criticising consumption? Did you know that were humans to live a hunter gatherer existence 99% of humanity would die? Cheap energy is the key to keeping humanity alive. Renewables are genocidal.

Japan would have had no problems if they had built their stations on
the west coast. The plate divide is to the east of Japan.

Keith Alder was a friend of mine and he ran Lucas Heights from its
startup till he retired.
His answer to waste fuel; build two specialist power station reactors
and pass the waste fuel through them in turn.
What comes out of them is lowly radio active.
Take in other countries waste and put it through them.
MONEY FOR JAM !
Australia could have more money than it would know what to do with it !

Fester wrong !
Chenobyl failed for another reason completely.
My friend who spent his life in Nuclear Power systems and Lucas Heights
told me the story of Chenobyl.
He was at a Nuclear conference in Vienna in 1956 when the Russians
described their Magnavox reactor.
After the talks several engineers present spoke about a major flaw
to do with the carbon moderators.
The Russians poo pooded the suggestions.
After the event Keith got the real report and the warnings given in
Vienna were realised and the reactor boiled during tests and blew
the containment vessel apart.
It was all to do with Communist Government attitudes and the refusal
of Russians to listen to others.

Interesting Bezza. Thanks.

The story I heard about Chernobyl (Russians tell a lot of stories) was that the nuclear technicians wanted to restart a reactor before the Xenon 135 had dissipated, so they began to remove the fixed control rods. At a point the neutron flux started accelerating and the technicians tried to control the situation by jamming the control rods back in, which made things worse. Anyway, that's the explanation I was aware of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCbms6umE_o

Actually Fester I suspect that the two explanations are a different
view of the same incident.

Bazz,

I didn't know that containment vessels were useless with a graphite moderator, so thanks for that, but the point I was making was that graphite moderated reactors are safe if used properly.

Cheers

graphite moderated reactors are safe if used properly.
Fester,
So would everything else including Govt & Bank online services !

Indyvidual,

Chernobyl is the worst disaster that could happen to a nuclear power plant and such a disaster could not happen with the passively safe designs today.

Nature now thrives in the exclusion zone, which is really not so surprising when you consider that there are places on earth with natural radiation levels 60% as high.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/christensen1/

Renewable energy. Now that is an environmental disaster in the making. It is especially nasty as its prior economic harm means that there will be fewer resources to deal with the problems.

Fester,
Yes, the renewable energy hype is already costing us too much in every aspect & the sooner this gravy train pulling the bandwagons can be put off the rails the better for our future.
If & what a big if it is, the bureaudroids in authority & the brainless in the education system were to be made responsible for their pushing of renewable energy, the sooner we could save the worst environmental disasters this planet is now facing !
I'm dismayed at the stupidity of so many educated people ! I suppose parasitism has no limits !

Bezza,

Renewable energy systems typically include a diverse mix of sources beyond just sunlight and wind. This variety helps to balance the fluctuations of any single energy source. Energy storage solutions, like batteries, are also advancing rapidly. Innovations in battery technology, along with other storage methods such as pumped hydro, flywheels, and thermal storage, ensure a steady supply during low-generation periods. Additionally, grid interconnections enable electricity sharing across regions, allowing areas with low renewable output to import power from those with a surplus.

As for successful implementations, many regions and countries have effectively integrated significant amounts of renewable energy into their grids. For instance, Denmark generates over 40% of its electricity from wind power, and Germany sometimes meets nearly 100% of its electricity demand with renewables. Projects like Tesla’s Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia have proven that large-scale battery storage can be economically viable and provide essential grid services. California, Spain, and parts of China have also shown success with large-scale renewable energy integration.

Regarding the economics of batteries, while it's true that battery storage requires substantial investment, costs have been steadily decreasing. Over the past decade, the price of lithium-ion batteries has dropped by about 89%. Large-scale battery projects, such as the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, have demonstrated economic benefits, including improved grid stability and reduced electricity costs. In contrast, fossil fuels involve ongoing fuel purchases and higher maintenance costs.

Solar panels and wind turbines have a lifespan of around 25-30 years, comparable to or even longer than many conventional power plants, which also require significant maintenance and eventual replacement. Technological advancements continue to improve the efficiency and lifespan of renewable energy components. Also worth noting is the ongoing research into the recycling and repurposing of these components to continually improve the sustainability of renewable energy production.

Fester,

The claim that subsidies for renewables amount to $15 billion annually seems exaggerated. Moreover, these subsidies are investments in a sustainable future, helping to lower long-term energy costs, foster innovation, and create jobs. In contrast, the $5.9 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies in 2020 shows extensive support beyond just tax breaks for producers.

Regarding renewable energy reliability, technologies like solar panels and wind turbines have lifespans of 25-30 years, similar to traditional fossil fuel plants. With proper maintenance and technological advancements, renewables can stay efficient and cost-effective throughout their lifespan. Additionally, the modular design of renewable systems allows for gradual upgrades and replacements, minimising power grid disruptions.

International comparisons highlight different strategies: France’s reliance on nuclear energy has provided stable, low-carbon power, but high initial costs and long construction times are drawbacks. France also deals with aging reactors and expensive maintenance. Meanwhile, Germany generates over 40% of its electricity from renewables, continuously improving capacity and grid integration. Though transitioning to renewables poses initial challenges, Germany focuses on long-term sustainability and reducing carbon emissions.

Renewable energy has become increasingly cost-competitive, with solar and wind power costs dropping significantly. Renewables are now cheaper than new coal or gas plants in many areas. The renewable sector has also created millions of jobs globally, showcasing its economic benefits. Technological advancements in energy storage and grid management have greatly enhanced the reliability of renewables. For instance, South Australia's Hornsdale Power Reserve has improved grid stability and reduced costs, demonstrating the effectiveness of battery storage systems.

While transitioning to renewable energy presents challenges, it is both feasible and essential for sustainability. Technological progress, cost reductions, and economic benefits make renewables a viable and necessary alternative to fossil fuels. Comparing different countries’ strategies underscores the need for a balanced and well-planned approach to energy transition.