Viv Forbes, Executive Director of the Saltbush Club, believes that every society will go through “at least one episode of crowd madness”, the current madness being climate change hysteria, which he compares with, “ the Dutch Tulip Mania in 1636”; the British “South Sea Bubble in 1720”; Zimbabwe in 2008, and a few others. We are in the 'green mania’ period where the 21st. Century maniacs blame every natural disaster on the use of cheap, reliable energy.

Green Energy "is a relic from a bygone era when most people lived or worked on farms and relied on animal power, windmills, sailing ships….”, writes Forbes. Subsidising, mandating and promoting its use in modern urbanised industrial society is a “con-trick worthy of the shady salesmen of past manias”

mostly invented by Christophobes.

Meanwhile back in the real world, cheap reliable power is essential, and renewables are the cheapest way to generate it in Australia (though nuclear power is a more sensible solution in some other countries that are less sunny/less windy/more densely populated).
Coal fired power is not only more expensive, but also unreliable – see https://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-power-plants-in-australia-broke-down-once-every-three-days-in-2018-2018/

Recognition of the need for action on climate change does not amount to hysteria. A significant warming of our atmosphere is known (even though Australia is affected much less than most other countries) and the changes we have made to the composition of the atmosphere are known to have a warming effect. The hysterics are the ones under the delusion that coal fired power is cheap and reliable, and renewables expensive and unreliable.

There have been plenty of bubbles in our time, on the share market and in real estate. That's human nature. But I'm puzzled why Viv considered Zimbabwe in 2008 to be an example of crowd madness – surely that was government madness?

Oh god Aidan is out of his box again.

Surely $14,000 a kWh for power in SA & Vic, caused by their love affair with alternate power along with blowing up, & closing the very coal fired power stations that have given us cheap power for decades should be enough to shut him up for a while.

Aiden, repeating a lie often enough just turns everyone off, convincing no one.

Hasbeen,
Your question contains a false assumption: that power prices rising to the maximum price at times of high demand is cause by renewables.

But in reality it's not a new thing; it long predates the solar and wind power. See http://reneweconomy.com.au/how-did-wind-and-solar-perform-in-the-recent-heat-wave-40479/

Yes, coal gave us cheap power for decades, but that was decades ago. Economics have changed but you seem to have failed to notice.

Hasbeen,

If Aidan still thinks unreliables are cheap, there is no hope for him. He's told the same lie so often that he probably believes it, or, he is too pigheaded to admit they he is wrong.

There's a town in Texas called Georgetown, where the municipality is apparently responsible for electricity, and where the village idiot doubles up as mayor. This idiot mayor went 100% unreliables; he was feted by Al Gore, and spent a lot of his time basking in the limelight on TV, giving interviews and so on.

However, now that Donald Trump has lifted the ban on fracking, and other Americans are getting cheaper power, up to $2,000 per year LESS than the citizens of Georgetown, Tx, the media can't find the mayor to get a comment. Perhaps he should employ Aidan as his press officer.

The real problem here is the wording.
It's an ever changing climate we're experiencing not a climate change. We have global warming & the next season brings global cooling.
What we don't have but need desperately is a global mentality change.
Become more responsible & all will be good. Stop demanding crap & no crap you shall receive !
Stop dishing out crap & no crap will be flung back at you ! Too difficult to understand ?
The Planet has been working on that principle for quite some time.

Even di Natale admitted that coal was more reliable with his war comments. I speculate that 10 gigawatts of high efficiency coal generation is a cheaper and more reliable source of power than 100 gigawatts of wind and solar. I would also suggest that the cost of the coal fired power stations would be less than the cost of the infrastructure to tie solar and wind to the grid as well as the sophisticated hardware and software needed to cope with the variability.

Us and Them.
Climate Change Agenda (Global Taxes) +
Open Borders Agenda (End of Sovereignty) =
Global Government (New World Order)

Why can't you people see the big picture?

cost of the infrastructure to tie solar and wind to the grid as well as the sophisticated hardware and software needed to cope with the variability.
Fester,
Aside from financial cost there's the environmental cost resulting from the production of "green" energy which is largely petroleum & coal/electricity based.

Since the war ended in 1945 from that time right up to the last few
weeks blackouts have been abscent.
Over the last couple of years several coal fired power stations were
closed and lots of wind farms and solar farms have been installed.
Now we have blackouts and restrictions on large consumer companies.

Do you think that there could be a connection there ?

With roof top solar panels with the Government annual subsidy given, it could have built a Nuclear power station.

http://stopthesethings.com/2018/10/27/annual-cost-of-australias-solar-subsidy-scam-hits-2-billion-sends-power-prices-into-orbit/

The fact is Coal fired stations are old so were failing. New coal fired stations are efficient and the current construction of Coal fired stations are increasing in the world, many using Australian coal.

catallaxyfiles.com/2018/08/11/coal-fired-power-stations-under-construction/

As has been said many times; Earth climate changes naturally it does not take man to do it. Most of the coal fired power stations are in the northern hemisphere and they are currently is the coldest records in human history. That the Earth temperature is warming is a theory put forward by a few hot heads living in areas where recorded temperatures are showing an increase. This is directly caused by the sun.

As most of you know, I'm not the brightest star in the sky! However, to me, there's one word that should govern our power policy, that's 'reliability.' To my way of thinking, it's either clean coal-fired generation or (dare I say it) nuclear generation. Anything else does not provide the necessary reliability that we all need.

If people wish to seek a more 'natural' ways to generate power - wind, sun, waves or whatever, that's fine, as long as it doesn't violate the 'reliability' policy. Perhaps one day they'll be able to refine more natural ways to generate power, reliably. Until then, it's either coal and/or nuclear to provide that power.

"With roof top solar panels with the Government annual subsidy given, it could have built a Nuclear power station".

Or a dozen efficient coal-powered stations.

o sung wu,

Yes. If it isn't reliable, it doesn't matter how clean it is.

Spot on TTBN - The operative word is reliability. For our personal use, the community, and of course business and industry. After all aren't we a first world country? Surely then, we should be setting an example of how to maintain reliable power for all those Nations not as advanced as us when it comes to supplying - constant, uninterrupted & reliable energy.

o sung wu,
You are wrongly assuming coal fired power to be reliable. I refer you to:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-power-plants-in-australia-broke-down-once-every-three-days-in-2018-2018/

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Josephus,
The amount of energy our planet gets from the sun does indeed vary. But if that were the only source of climate change, our planet would have been cooling for a few decades.

And you greatly underestimate the cost of a nuclear power station...

_______________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
...as do you with coal fired!

Georgetown, Texas is 100% renewables in the same way as Canberra: net not gross. Its mayor is a Tea Party Republican, so he may well double as village idiot. But he made a commercial decision to go with renewables because he wanted certainty about prices.

I'm puzzled as to your reference to Trump lifting the ban on fracking, as there was no such ban; it's always been a state issue, and Texas allowed it during the Obama years, and as a result of that (and export restrictions) has had cheap gas and cheap electricity. There have been a few changes under Trump, making more federal land available for drilling, but looking at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3035tx3m.htm there does not appear to be any great reduction in prices in the Trump era.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Armchair,
Global taxes on pollution would be a good thing, alas there's practically no chance of us getting it.
Sovereignty does not require sealed borders!
Global government would be a good thing, as long as its scope is strictly limited.
The New World Order conspiracy theorists fail to understand that the prophecies of Revelation will not be the result of human efforts.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Individual,
Nobody's claiming global cooling. Even when people with a poor understanding of statistics said the warming had stopped, they didn't claim it had been replaced by cooling.

Variability is something that needs to be coped with anyway. And the environmental cost of manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels is insignificant compared to their output.

The quickest way to get reliable power is to undertake a program of
refurbishment, repair and replacement.
Maintenance has been neglected because the priority given to wind/solar
has taken away the stations profit and directly caused the closure of
Hazlewood power station and others such as Liddel are suffering from
the same problem.
I am advised that a crash maintenance program, which will need considerable
money and more staff can improve output and reliability faster and
quicker than building new. Quicker is a major priority !
My friend commented that he could not see why they could not be kept
running for a hundred years.

Aidan,
I didn't say warming has been REPLACED by cooling. I'm saying that presently there is warming AND cooling.
Cooling is not far off being the new fad for funding rorts. Anything that we are unable to control yet claim to be able to by funding, is a rort, scientific or not.

Hi there AIDAN...

Thank you for that extract you've shared with us all. I note they described the 'aging' black coal generators were breaking down every three days or so. I suppose they would when the operators never sought to engage in a proper maintenance schedule, especially as some of the generators pre-date that of the inception of Colour Television?

May I ask Aidan, if you were all-powerful, and you knew the community, in 2019, would no longer countenance regular blackouts or brownouts, how would you ensure reliable, uninterrupted power, to the community as a whole?

individual,
NOBODY is claiming there is global cooling. 'Twas a hypothesis that got rejected many decades ago (1970s I think, but it was before my time) because the evidence showed the planet was warming.

Since then some people have advocated deliberate attempts to cool the planet, and a few have predicted that we will have global cooling due to changing solar activity, but the claims we're having global cooling are confined to your head. As are the claims that funding would enable us to control what we currently can not.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
>Since the war ended in 1945 from that time right up to the last few weeks blackouts have been absent.
That's certainly not the case on the case in my state. Are you sure it is in yours? If so, would I be correct in deducing you live in Tasmania?

>The quickest way to get reliable power is to undertake a program of refurbishment, repair and replacement.
Really? How much quicker would it be than installing some more batteries or gas turbines?

>Maintenance has been neglected because the priority given to wind/solar has taken away the stations profit
Are you sure about that? I understood the changes to the maintenance regime occurred just after privatisation (when the new owners cut costs by cutting staff numbers) well before there was significant wind and solar power supplying the grid. Do you have any evidence that I'm wrong about this?

Aidan,

The cost and complexity of tying solar and wind to the grid and making it a reliable energy source would bankrupt this nation. AlanB's oft touted thorium would likely be much cheaper, but would likely take decades to develop. High efficiency coal fired power is a cheap, reliable and proven source of energy available now. Pursuing the socialist renewable energy fantasy, like all other socialist fantasies, will end in social and financial disaster.

The Greens Leader Richard Di Natale:A uninformed small minded idiot blaming fires in Tasmania and the drought in Central Australia on Coal. Last week he was blaming Cubby Station on the fish kill in the Murray, again ignorant of real issues. He refuses to recognise where does lithium come from for batteries? What mined products are used to create charge in the batteries. Where does the steel come from to make wind turbines. The idiot has no idea. Most products are made in China by coal fired power.

http://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/1105822882912636/?fref=mentions&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARACxjwIcPd4-cUAKvQcsyFxjuVDYfFZDz8facFWWJzFfoNsSRMJXIM7EI_a00BPMnpTS0ECgrJauGcCYFzeRHHqfffbucT9c1r4XCrQ2hYI29SzA1OmQCEbRD7u5m-SBoPJzR4pW87_juS2CNeC27mgSmfqNoz6JdjPFMfd8vSC26UZmu5qSzUqbMBH01DoqgY6Qc5Ew3uGNOnCZRv4VcXinRaXQv5Jrw2zSWlI1FJLsUd5Tt6DCXkVE0lukKMtD4XUOLZS151G34WX1eAvy30-_NGg9L0UGnwm_87LGIMiBOIgCg5OYT1xXBgo5CwItyILSu_t_W6OQV4I6dPRd-37t4NVXo5dTIDgYv35VTIyfJJns8013tA&__tn__=K-

No Aiden I am in NSW. There has never been any blackouts here.
There would have been if Tomago Aluminum had said go to b--- when
asked to switch off their pot line.

Gas turbines probably the quickest, but gas supply uncertain politically.
Batteries fairy land stuff, you would never get them recharged in time
for the next blackouts.

The priority of renewables getting the load undercuts their income.
Now you must know this so why do you pretend not ?
Re maintenance, I am told that they cut back on maintenance but only
to minor extent, they still needed them on line.

Yes my neighbour worked all his life in power station maintenance.
It is him that is certain that they could be kept running for a
hundred years. Sure to build new maybe a little more economic and
better design is probably the cause of that.
He says that the boilers are the biggest problem as at sometime one
will need major repairs, and one could even be renewed with one
unit shut down for the months it would take. I am told that by doing
the job in a more difficult way it could be quicker.

Frankly I think there is no alternative, new stations could take
three years for a 2GW station, if they were in a hurry.

Anyway there is another problem coming over the horizon.
On 1st January 2020 all ships must use "cleaner" fuel.
The shipping world has already started the change. Most seem to be
switching to diesel and it is already causing some problems.
A world tightness of supply is already noticeable and gluts of the
heavier oils is likely to develop. At present Venezuelan heavy oil is
at low production rates. It is normally mixed with diesel like
fractions to make it saleable.

There have been suggestions that serious shortages of diesel may develop.

o sung wu,
As the article notes, the reliability of newer (HELE) coal was even lower.

As for what I'd do instead:

Firstly I'd get more dispatchable generation capacity - mainly in the form of batteries, but also obtain (on lease) more gas turbines. And start construction of infrastructure like Snowy 2.0 which will change the way we use hydro. I'd also see what it would take to get the railway museum to use some of their diesel electric locos to supply power to the grid on days of very high demand.

I'd ensure renewable generators had access to cheap finance so that less subsidy is required as an incentive to build them.

I'd make it much easier for users to buy electricity on the wholesale market so that anyone could benefit from demand responsive technology. And I'd change the gas market rules so that generators don't have to arrange to buy gas before they start using it.

I'd encourage heavy industry to find ways of utilizing lots of cheap power while avoiding having to use electricity when it's relatively expensive.

And I'd upgrade and enlarge the grid to make it more capable, while ensuring the infrastructure companies would not be able to profit from financing it.

Fester, If you think getting reliable energy from solar and wind would bankrupt the nation then you're extremely ignorant. Firstly because the nation's a sovereign currency issuer, and secondly because it would be CHEAPER than the coal fired power that you disingenuously claim is reliable.

I suggest you read http://www.csiro.au/~/media/News-releases/2018/Annual-update-finds-renewables-are-cheapest-new-build-power/GenCost2018.pdf

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
Is that really all ships? Or just all ships in Europe?

I'm amazed NSW power is that reliable. [Can another NSW resident confirm or deny it really is?]

>Batteries fairy land stuff, you would never get them recharged in time for the next blackouts.
What timespan do you assume that to be?

>The priority of renewables getting the load undercuts their income.
Of course, and I never pretended otherwise. But that's a good thing - we shouldn't have to pay so much to subsidise inefficient power stations.

>Re maintenance, I am told that they cut back on maintenance but only
>to minor extent, they still needed them on line.
Are you referring to privatisation here? Or response to renewables?

Aidan,
does the burning of gas leave an environmental footprint ?

from the Net

A Norwegian University of Science and Technology study published in 2012 by Yale University in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, detailed the impact of manufacturing electric cars compared with manufacturing gasoline-powered cars. The results were surprising, as the study revealed that while the carbon emission impact of electric vehicle usage was less than gasoline-powered cars, the overall production impacts of electric vehicles are more significant than conventional vehicles primarily due to the environmental harm caused during the mining and processing of the raw materials used for the cars’ batteries.

Reading through the comments here, I have to say that most of you are talking sense, but it's a good thing that Aidan isn't running anything or making decisions. It's OK to talk rubbish as an anonymous poster on the internet; thankfully he is confined to the keyboard.

Electric cars? They need twice the copper used by conventional cars, therefore more copper mining. Oops, mining is 'bad' isn't it.

Hi there AIDAN...

Thank you for your most comprehensive answer. Heavy Industry would need to find better and more efficient ways to obtain power other than relying on electricity. From where would they find this source of energy, Nuclear? By employing the older diesel-electric locomotives to generate power in times of heavy usage - wouldn't these diesel loco's emit unacceptable levels of pollution?

AIDAN, there's no doubt your hearts in the right place. But the only way to ensure reliable, affordable, and sustainable power, and if coal is out of the equation, then it's got to be Nuclear. Our technology at present is not sufficiently advanced, to fully harness the necessary power needed from the Sun, wind, or wave technology. One day soon perhaps, but just not yet, unfortunately.

“Those advocating climate change mitigation policy have hitherto wagered everything on the success of renewable energy technologies. The steadily accumulating data on energy and emissions over the period of intense policy commitment suggests that this gamble has not been successful.” (Dr John Constable, 'The Global Warming Policy Forum')

The net result of several decades of such measures has been negligible. Yet, the rent-seekers, liars and hysterics still stick to their guns in the face of the bleeding obvious. In the same spirit as these scammers suggested 'deniers' should be punished, will they, instead, be punished when their tricks are obvious even to the fools who still believe them? Nah. The flat earthers and the witch-burners of Salem got away with it when their hysterical superstitions were finally revealed.

o sung wu,
>Heavy Industry would need to find better and more efficient ways to obtain power other than relying on electricity.
I'm thinking almost the exact opposite! Heavy industry would have plenty of cheap electricity to take advantage of most of the time, but would shut down or scale back production on days when electricity's expensive.

>By employing the older diesel-electric locomotives to generate power in times of heavy usage
> - wouldn't these diesel loco's emit unacceptable levels of pollution?
They'd be used so rarely (only in peak hours, on <1% of days) that it wouldn't be a big problem, and there are things that could be done to mitigate the problem (such as using sulfur free fuel).

I don't know how viable it really is, but it's certainly something worth investigating. And I'm sure plenty of rail enthusiasts would like to see (and hear) the locos running their engines at full blast again!

Nuclear power is a good option for some countries, but I don't see it as economically viable in Australia now. If we'd started building it to replace coal power twenty or thirty years ago it would be different, But meanwhile renewables technology has moved on a lot further than you realise.

____________________________________________________________________________________

individual,
Yes the burning of gas leaves an environmental footprint. But it's usually a much smaller environmental footprint than the burning of coal. Obviously we have to learn from the exceptions to ensure they're never repeated.

Ultimately we should phase out the use of gas from fossil sources (except where it would escape into the atmosphere if we didn't use it) but that's a very long term objective of little relevance to present day activity.

That 2012 study about electric cars has been well reported, but many regard its assumptions as flawed, and there have been other studies since then that have reached different conclusions.
____________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Mining is not intrinsically bad, and even the Australian Greens support it. But it does have a large environmental impact which needs to be managed.

There is one simple fact that the ratbag greens refuse to admit.

We the peasants lead much longer, more healthy, happier lives since we started using fossil fuels, than did the kings & courtiers in the pristine environment of the middle ages.

If the emissions & residues of modern power generation, industrial processes, & transportation systems are so bad, why has our life expectancy doubled, & our health improved so much?

This is merely the dislike of academia, & the elites seeing the mere trady, truck driver or clerk living a life today, better than any of them lived immediately post war. They never intended the living standards of the peasant to rise to any where near this standard. They are horrified to see us with nice homes, cars & even flying around the planet for gods sake.

They want us back to the days of the feudal estate, where peasants lived in huts, & walked everywhere. All this luxury was never meant for the likes of us.

They tried to use this scam, & the useful idiots among us to get us back in our box. They made the mistake of using us to fight their wars, where we discovered we are every bit as capable as them, & usually better.

The sun spots, or the lack of is going to kill this attempt for them, but they will try again. We need to be ever vigilant, & we need to get on top of the dumbing down of the education system, so we are ready to defend ourselves next time.

'We the peasants lead much longer, more healthy, happier lives since we started using fossil fuels, than did the kings & courtiers in the pristine environment of the middle ages.'

so true Hasbeen but then again think of the paradise the Indigeneous lived in before the 'evil' British came. Unless of course you were a woman or disabled.

Wow, Hasbeen, it looks like you've been busy building strawmen!

Whether the Middle Ages really were pristine is debatable, but nobody wants us to return to those conditions. Our living standards improved because of improving science and technology: our understanding has improved and we've taken advantage of that to improve our lives.

Previously, improving our standard of living required large amounts of fossil fuel. It no longer does, because our understanding has improved sufficiently to achieve the benefits in other ways. Yet our consumption of fossil fuels is much higher than when our standard of living did rely on it.

I'm not aware of any elites trying to hold back technological process. If any exist, they're clearly not very powerful, so I wonder: on what basis do you assign them elite status?

However, in the area of macroeconomics, the elites are firmly in control and we've been damaging our standard of living by running needlessly tight fiscal policy for years. When will you stop falling for their propaganda?

Some of the income that the Greens and climate hysterics/liars/crooks want Australia to forego:

Coal exports last year - $66.2 billion.

Gas exports - $63 billion

"cheap reliable power is essential,"

I used to live at a time and in a country where power was cheap and reliable. In fact so cheap that the country had arguably the cheapest power on the planet and was able to maintain high electricity using industries without any problems.

Power was reliable and the people became so used to it and so disconnected from the idea that it wasn't always going to be there when they wanted it, that they began to listen to charlatans who convinced them that they could offer power that was cheap and reliable while also saving the world and/or the GBR from the great AGW monster.

Alas that country no longer exists as the basis for its erstwhile cheap and reliable power has been destroyed.

The good news is that a return to that country is as simple as deciding to rebuild the power stations that proliferated in the early 21st century. The bad news is that the charlatans won't allow it.

Aidan,

The prediction from the renewable energy advocates was that solar and wind would make electricity cheaper. With a small amount of wind and solar, electricity supply is more expensive and less reliable. Can you give a working example of a renewable only power supply system that is as reliable and cheaper than coal? Australian consumers have been misled.

twisting figures and manipulating data use to be called lying. It seems the renewables crowd have become an expert at it. Even the founder of the weather channel exposes these charlatans. What I wonder is how these pseudo scientist, false prophets, data manipulators and fraudsters get any job satisfaction from spreading the lies. The pay must be very good while the satisfaction rate must be very low. I think toilet cleaners contribute more to this nation than these leaches.

Can any of you fossil fuel deniers tell us how huge ships and trucks and farm tractors and trains are to be fuelled? These modes of transport are used to supply food to the people. Alternative wind, solar and water movement created electricity will fuel none of these.

A Carbon Tax is coming for farm machinery, livestock, trucks, freight, fishers and boats - Cory Bernardi tried to stop this mechanism in parliament, but the Labor party and Greens voted for it.

There is also talk of cutting back on herds to reduced farting. Crazy!

Josephus, it has become a belief very like a religion and they believe
that we must do all these steps to completely stop the burning of anything.
It is like flagellation, no matter how much it hurts it is better for us.
Many iridescent greens are just waiting for the inevitable social meltdown.

It reminds me of the Hell and Brimstone preachers of old.
Another similar religious simily is the ISIS purists.
I have no proof either way and the experts are arguing.
However there seems to be a lot of disputed symptoms that are contrary to the AGW "proof".
I doubt the greens solutions are rational and will achieve their aim.

None amswered my question;
If you take a number of power stations off the grid and replace them
with less wind and solar might there be a connection to blackouts ?
Further if you take more off the grid will there be more blackouts ?

Bazz,

It's just another reincarnation of socialism, and like every other reincarnation of socialism it will be ruinous.

https://www.news.com.au/world/south-america/children-of-venezuelas-elite-including-exleader-hugo-chavezs-daughter-flaunt-wealth/news-story/22af92afbb1a12ec841fa36348748a1f

“Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.” – Thomas Sowell

We replaced a system that provided cheap reliable power with one that doesn't because our betters thought they saw a system that sounded better. Green, free power that saved the planet. What could go wrong? Now that its gone wrong, they can't afford to admit error so double down on their error. T'was always thus.

We have not heard from those that deny the use of fossil fuel including coal and its by-products like bitumen for roads, waterproofing and cosmetics. Try creating the world's need of steel without coal fires. Even mini mills use Coke, produced from coal in the coke ovens, is used as a fuel and reductant in the blast furnace together with fluxes to produce pig iron. Natural gas is also commonly used as a supplementary fuel in the blast furnace.

It seems the Greens agenda is to produce a Venezuela and even worse, they haven't got a clue on how to care for a population.

Germany spent a trillion dollars on wind power and, as a result, power prices rose by 50%, with NO reduction in CO2 emissions.

China has now cut out all subsidies to unreliable windmills.

If all motorists decided to go for electric cars, electricity production would have to double.

Unreliable wind and solar is looking sillier by the day.

"If all motorists decided to go for electric cars"

In a development that is truly hilarious in its irony, Tesla and other EV owners have been complaining to the various manufacturers that, during the current extremely cold conditions in the USA, their batteries have been draining more quickly than usual, even when garaged overnight.

So the car developed to save the world from extreme heat, fails to operate when the world experiences extreme cold! Comedy gold.

The proponents of this renewable & unreliable energy are at the forefront of not giving up the convenience of coal powered commodities !

Bloody hell if you lot were around when the decisions about the Snow River Hydro Scheme were being first floated you would have slammed the hell out of that too.

Too Green! Too unreliable! What if the rain doesn't fall? Too expensive! Coal is king forever!

What a bunch of old fossilised farts. The world in moving on leaving you and your uninspiring vision for our future behind.

And thank goodness for that.

It has taken SteeleRedux a working week to come up with the vital contribution “old fossilised farts”.

Some of us were around when the Snowy Scheme was started. That's why we know more than SR does about everything. Experience beats teenage rants and abuse any day.

Take one example of an ammonia plant, the one that works efficiently and economically using the Haber process, not the unreliable junk that BS wants to waste a thousand million dollars of taxpayers hard earned money on. With wonderful green energy it is lucky to work for six to eight hours a day, so for the other sixteen to eighteen hours it sits idle. Will a company spend money building up a plant in Australia under these circumstances, or will it build the plant in a country with cheap and reliable 24/7 coal fired power? If this ruinous ideology continues to dictate policy it's "Venezuela here we come!".

We still have not heard how farm machinery, trains, trucks, overseas freight, and cruise ships are to be fuelled. It appears they haven't got a clue how to fuel these without producing CO2.

Steelie, what form of argument is this, putting the SMS on par with the 100% renewables fantasy and lumping critics with some confected connection?

Surely you've got more in your quiver than that. Tell us where in the world intermittent renewables aren't jacking up the price to consumers (while their cost is falling!) and where they're bringing down emissions significantly (don't forget the 100% fossil-fuelled backup needed, or very expensive batteries).

You and the other chap here spouting the superiority of renewables continue a long line of fantasists. https://tinyurl.com/y7yjp463 It takes more than a vivid imagination to solve the climate problem.

More from Shellenberger for fantasists to explore and sharpen refututations. http://www.forbes.com/search/?q=shellenberger#40b34a08279f

Something for Alan B. http://tinyurl.com/y3bwsp9l

What is the official definition when rating renewable energy sources
such as wind turbines for output ?
When we see it stated by the media, proponents or opposers we all need
to use the same definitions.
I hear such statements as a 500 Megawatt wind farm.
Exactly what does that mean ?
Unless we know what the definitions for wind and solar mean then we
are arguing without meaning.

Dear Lucifrase,

You wrote;

"Steelie, what form of argument is this, putting the SMS on par with the 100% renewables fantasy and lumping critics with some confected connection?"

My point was clearly made so if you have trouble understanding it I invite you to read it again.

We should note that Snowy Hydro has gas and diesel assets to cope with intermittent production pauses. I'm sure if the scheme was put up now as a way of mitigating carbon pollution regardless of the economics you would be railing against it like you constantly do wind and solar projects.

Your ideology repeatedly trumps your logic constantly.

We still have not heard how farm machinery, trains, trucks, overseas freight, and cruise ships are to be fuelled. It appears they haven't got a clue how to fuel these without producing CO2.

If the Greens had their way farming would cease, cows and humans murdered to reduce population, there would be no planes or ships of heavy road transport creating tourism or transporting food or goods. they are the proponents of a cult of death to the economy of a nation and its people.

Well Josephus, if 45% reduction is to be achieved then all sources
must be reduced by that amount unless some other source can be removed
totally. No one seems to be able to discuss this point.
I have asked elsewhere but I never get answers.
Not even to tell me that my question is meaningless.
I notice even Craig Kelly does not get answers. If an MHR cannot get
answers who can ?

We will probably have to cull 45% of the Australian population, and
if so I think it could be done as people exit the polling booths.
Ask them how they voted and if they voted Labour shoot them.
Problem solved.

No one here appears to know the answer to my question about how to
rate wind turbines and solar systems.
I guess just the simple nameplate rating might be the most stable figure.
I have seen a figure which I think was 35% of nameplate for wind turbines.
So if the nameplate says 10 Megawatt the turbines rating is 3.5 Mwatt.

Power plant that turns green waste into energy could solve power reliability in regions

In a farm shed in the West Australian Wheatbelt, a grain farmer and an engineer have invented a waste-fuelled power plant, which they say could be the solution to power generation and reliability problems in regional Australia.

After 11 years of research, the Rainbow Bee Eater (RBE) group has designed and built a power plant that uses biomass to create clean burning fuel gas or electricity in a single step, and its developers say it does not need government subsidies or grants to be cost effective.

Bioenergy is the production of energy using biomass materials, which are the by-products of agricultural, food and forestry industries.

According to the CSIRO, bioenergy currently accounts for just 0.9 per cent of Australia's electricity output — much lower than the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country average of 2.4 per cent.

Australia is the only OECD country that has not implemented a large-scale waste-to-energy scheme to manage its waste.

One of the biggest barriers to the sector's growth is the cost of energy production.

Building waste powers herb production

Last year RBE made its first commercial sale: a $3-million fully automated plant for South Australian herb grower Holla Fresh.

RBE managing director Peter Burgess said the plant, called ECHO2, used building wood waste trucked in from capital cities to create hot water, electricity and carbon dioxide, along with creating biochar, which was then on-sold.

"Some of the syngas will go into a boiler to make hot water. The exhaust from that boiler is very clean — it's a rich source of CO2, carbon dioxide.

"That will go into the glasshouse to enrich the CO2 levels in the glasshouse, which is a way that glasshouse operators lift the yield of their plants."

Mr Burgess said the plant could be established anywhere in Australia with access to suitable biomass fuel such as woodchips, baled straw, or poultry litter, making it an option for small regional communities struggling with power reliability issues.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-02-10/western-australia-oil-mallee-could-power-town/10640764

Josephus,
>If the Greens had their way farming would cease, cows and humans murdered to reduce population...
And if you had your way, we'd have a nuclear war to achieve the same outcome.

Meanwhile back in the real world, the Greens actually regard human rights as important, and don't want catastrophic deindustrialization. So instead criticising the policies of moronic stereotypes of the Greens, how about looking up what the Greens' actual policies are?

______________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
The first thing we must consider about a 45% reduction from all sources is that it's a net figure, and much can be done by increasing the amount of carbon absorbed from the atmosphere.

The second thing to consider is it's an average figure. It's easier to cut the emissions intensity of some processes than others. That's why there's such a big focus on electricity generation – switching to renewables will enable a 90%+ reduction from that sector relatively quickly, even with existing technology. Other sectors are awaiting technological breakthroughs to reduce emissions. And there are some, like aviation, where although there's significant scope for improvements, those gains are likely to be counteracted by increasing activity.

BTW it is indeed the nameplate rating that's used. But with so much renewable electricity infrastructure being built now, that's not the problem that some once thought it to be.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Fester, I'll respond to your points later.

Thanks, Aidan.

Bazz,

I did look into wind turbines and noted an industry figure of 40% touted, as in delivering an average power output of 40% capacity over a year. The measured figure is 15 to 30%, so wind is similar to solar except you can get power at any time of day, or as the wind blows.

Steelie, why would anyone be ideologically against intermittent renewables. They're harmless, and useless for the task at hand.

What about answers to simple burning questions? Oh, it's OK, I found some here http://tinyurl.com/y469bkmp

Bazz,
I googled pollution from production of green technology, the answers are scary.

OK Fester,
Well the 15% figure seems very low because it means that you
need over 6 times the number of turbines spread all over the country
to get 100%. Of course the odds are that there would be times when
they would get more than 100% but that means they would also get less
than 100% other times.
This explains figures I have seen that, provided your country is big
enough, you need 12 times the nameplate rating turbines.

Theoretically solar with tracking would mean about 40% times the ratio
of cloudy days. Likewise some days more, some less. Near the Tropic
of Capricorn would be best I think. I guess 40% judging by my solar
cells in midwinter.

These would be reasons why renewables are so much more expensive than coal.

I remember reading something about that a long time ago. One of the
major co2 generation in their building was cement. There was however
many other items of course but they are a once off in the construction.
There was also a controversy about whether you count everything.
The CO2 in making the maintenance mans van, his fuel, the house his
family lives in, his wife's travel, the kids school, the access roads,
the list of everything that is needed to build and maintain the wind farm.
No one has to really worry about all that as it will all come out at
the bottom line and it will live or die on the cost.

Fester,
An ammonia plant using the hater process is always inefficient! Considering the enormous energy consumption and CO2 emissions of ammonia plants around the world, it's well worth spending spending large amounts of public money on R&D to make the efficient alternatives cheaper and more reliable.

Whether it's worth building a plant that won't operate 24seven depends not only on the cost of electricity, but also on the cost of capital – the lower interest rates are, the more likely such an investment is to be profitable. Currently they're at record lows, and could fall further.

Batterries make the job easier - with batteries doing the short term load balancing, the plant can stay on or off for days at a time, so there'd be no need for staff to hang around idle.

Re countries with cheaper power entirely from renewables, Iceland is the obvious example. It's probably one you'll reject because it's not from solar and wind – but those have only recently become cheaper than coal, so of course no country is in that position yet. I suggest you have a look at Sanjeev Gupta's plans for Whyalla – he's taking advantage of cheap solar power; not from the grid, but directly from solar panels directly to the steelworks, and also TO the grid.

I'll probably deal with most of your claims on the other thread tonight, but meanwhile see my response to Bazz:

__________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
There you go again with the outdated claim that coal is cheaper than renewables even though in this thread I've linked to a CSIRO report that says otherwise. Clearly you and Fester haven't read the report – otherwise you'd know that the comparison is based on meeting our objectives, not nameplate capacity.

Yes, cement production's a huge producer of CO2, though considerable efforts are being made to try and reduce this. One important discovery was that they could save a lot of energy by grinding the clinker while it's still hot.

You can safely disregard any report disingenuous enough to include the kids school in the environmental costs of a wind farm!

Aidan,

The research I read on ammonia would suggest more interest in modifying the Haber process to work at lower pressure and temperature by using catalysts and by continuously harvesting ammonia from the reaction. An efficiency of >86% would be required for the modified process to be economically competitive with the current process. In contrast, the rubbish that BS is pursuing has slightly higher efficiency than the commercial Haber process(roughly 70% vs 66%), but operates at a few percent of the rate, perhaps closer to one percent. I would guess that it also has a very long list of other cost, reliability and scaling problems to overcome.

The idea of having an ammonia plant is to make money from its output. I doubt you would find many willing to leave such an asset idle for 75% of the time.

Aidan please answer the question: How are we going to feed a high rise city? What fuels trucks, long distance freight trains, planes and ships?

Fester,
I'm sure Shorten wouldn't be averse to anyone modifying the Haber process to make it more efficient. But AIUI the alternative process he favours has scope for further efficiency gain. And your comparison of the rate is meaningless as you don't say what you're comparing it by. The more production infrastructure you have, the more you produce. So when you say "a few percent of the rate, perhaps closer to one percent", what are you assuming to be equal?

And yes, of course there's a lot of other problems to overcome - hence the importance of public investment.

How much of the time an asset can profitably be idle for depends, as I said, on the cost of capital and the cost of other inputs. AIUI in ammonia production the energy costs are overwhelmingly dominant. Have I misunderstood that?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Josephus,
Why do you bother addressing such stupid questions to me? Surely you know that we'd use farms to feed a high rise city, and that planes use kerosene and most other long distance transport uses diesel?

I could add that it's possible some high value crops will be grown within the city – see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-10/farms-of-the-future:-growing-crops-without-the-sun/9855578

I could also add that not only are there alternatives to diesel, but also alternative ways to make it - it doesn't have to rely on fossil sources. But until I know why you're asking the question, and why you're asking me, I'm not going to bother going into more detail.

Aidan,

A fast reaction means you combine your products more quickly. Think of two bakers: One makes a loaf of bread in one minute, the other makes the same loaf in 100 minutes. I think it pretty clear why the Haber process is commercially viable.

As for your claim that renewables are cost competitive, it must have improved an awful lot since the December SMH article when solar and wind minus batteries and connecting infrastructure were still far more costly than coal. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of technology, but when I see a cost of eight billion dollars touted for a two gigawatt wind farm, I get an inkling that the cost of supplying electricity solely from such systems would amount to thousands of dollars per capita per annum. Sheer madness.

Right at this moment I'm watching a program on the air pollution in Mongolia.s capital from all the coal ovens to keep people warm in the minus 30 degrees.
They reckon climate change is making their winters more severe but not in the warming sense.

Just watched Bill Gates saying that there is no substitute for the way that economy runs today. Unreliables and batteries will simply not do the job. I would pitch Gates against any of nitwits who think otherwise any day.

With possibly annoying humour, this lays out many of the issues if you have the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjFWiMJdotM&fbclid=IwAR3acYznfO4c_6i5i_myO9QEDMx3pc7WL9nxFGPuIPHSL7OnDmQQPmcv6aQ

Luciferase,
Imagine if we could populate our lands with a population that can digest logic.
Alas !

Green logic is that since Iceland (geothermal) and Norway (hydro) run on a constant supply of renewable energy the rest of the world should be able to run on intermittent renewable energy.

Great to see Iceland getting a mention again, thanks Aidan.

Germany is the poster-child of the banal logic of the Greens.

Luciferase,
Germany has become what it is when it stopped being run by Germans. If only the leftists could take that into consideration when next they propose Doctors overruling Border policies !

Facts:

Germany spent $580 billion on renewables over last decade and got:

Zero emissions reductions

A 50% increase in cost of electricity

Electricity supply ten times more carbon-intensive than in France

Electricity nearly twice as expensive as in France

Meanwhile, France spent $33 billion on wind-solar over the last 10 years and the carbon intensity of its electricity supply increased because the intermittent nature of wind & solar required burning more natural gas. And electricity prices rose, too!

Dear Lucifrase,

Oh come on mate, please stop trying to make it look like you have gone and done the research yourself. Failing to at least acknowledge your sources is borderline dishonest at best.

The quote comes from one of the nuclear industry's highest paid lobbyists;

http://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1095054728126435334

He heads the misnamed 'Environmental Progress' whose "campaign has involved a blizzard of misinformation and relentless, dishonest attacks against environment groups, particularly Friends of the Earth (FOE) and Greenpeace.

http://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposing-misinformation-michael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress

But even by his figures, which I don't trust one bit Germany, has transitioned away from a huge reliance on nuclear power without increasing its emissions, quite an amazing feat in anyone's book.

Which of the facts (which Shellenberger does not own BTW) are wrong?

Germany has "transitioned" as much to French nuclear, Nordic hydro, gas and coal as it has to renewables since dumping what it has of its own nuclear capacity.

Look also at storage in Germany. It's going nowhere because nothing grid-scale that is invented is viable. It's going nowhere while Russian gas increasingly assumes backup, new coal-fired power and coal-mines are built, and clean energy is imported.

Shellenberger is a part of an environmental movement that cares about our future. Big Coal/Oil/Gas certainly doesn't love him, nor does Big Green. Faith in invention and playing the man is the Green orthodoxy prevailing over sensibly addressing facts and science.

Come on yourself, mate.

Since when has the left let facts cloud their ideology? That is what I find very frightening. Scarlet with a pink veneer.

No doubt Dr James Hansen is a shill for the nuclear industry too.

http://seekerblog.com/2015/08/09/james-hansen-on-big-green-its-all-about-the-money/?fbclid=IwAR2A3jN5xCkjNqTMI9qEfhuQIAy2tBwIeyISK_lvMWGxnSiqhK-NOqciDmA

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2014/10/11/james-hansen-climate-change-speaking-truth-power/17118625/

Interesting isn't it.

When Steely can't refute the solid facts from a poster, we find him attacking the messenger for not referencing where the facts came from.

Steely appeals to authority are an acknowledgement that the poster doesn't understand the subject. Perhaps that is why most lefty posts are full of them.

Fester,
In terms of refusing to let facts cloud their ideology, the right tend to be even worse than the left.

Regarding your baker analogy, why limit yourself to one baker? If one fast baker is a hundred times as productive as one slow baker, wouldn't a better comparison be between one fast baker and a hundred slow bakers?

Which SMH article are you referring to? If it's the one abut the CSIRO study, it said the exact opposite of what you're claiming, as you're wrongly applying capacity factors to the figures (whereas if you'd bothered to read the study, you'd see that the figures relate to output not capacity.

If it's the one about the proposed offshore windfarm for South Gippsland, please note the following:
•Offshore wind farms are more expensive than their land based counterparts, but tend to have much higher capacity factors.
•The $8 billion price tag sounds a lot, but 2 gigawatts for 8 gigabucks is only $4/W.
•It's only a proposal. If it's not economically viable, it won't get built.
•You can find a bit more information about it at: http://www.starofthesouth.com.au

___________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,
>Green logic is that since Iceland (geothermal) and Norway (hydro) run on a constant supply of
>renewable energy the rest of the world should be able to run on intermittent renewable energy.
No, that's not green logic, that's anti green propaganda.

>Great to see Iceland getting a mention again, thanks Aidan.
It was the answer to the question that was asked. Do you think I should've lied or ignored the question? If you read my answer properly, you'll notice I commented on the irrelevance of both the answer and the question!

And failing to mention Germany's primary objective when discussing the success or failure of their renewables policy is a bit deceptive IMO.
___________________________________________________________________________________

SteeleRedux,

Stop whinging about Luciferase's research. Nuclear industry lobbyists are better sources of information than the politicians that many others here blindly swallow the lies of. If you object, challenge the content not the source!

<why limit yourself to one baker? If one fast baker is a hundred times as productive as one slow baker, wouldn't a better comparison be between one fast baker and a hundred slow bakers?>

That is 100 CSIRO reactors using 100 times the quantity of hydrogen as one Haber plant to generate ammonia at the same rate. Which company do you think will survive? If you had the capital to build 100 plants for the same output, you would not have it for long.

<it said the exact opposite of what you're claiming, as you're wrongly applying capacity factors to the figures (whereas if you'd bothered to read the study, you'd see that the figures relate to output not capacity.>

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/renewables-to-be-cheaper-than-coal-even-without-climate-policy-csrio-says-20181221-p50nnq.html

Capacity is the average output. When you look at rooftop solar and compare it to coal for example, you need to match the capacities. That means multiplying the cost of solar by about three(more than that in reality, but I am treating renewables kindly). To match coal around the clock solar would also require batteries. Is that cost accounted for in the article? Not to my knowledge. Similarly with wind you have to combine probabilities to calculate capacity. It is not additive as you cannot guarantee maximum output from one plant when another is idle. BAZZ suggested you need 12 times the number for constant output. Suppose you needed six wind farms to match the output of a coal generator. On that basis the cost of wind would be almost twice the cost of nuclear. Maintenance and capital depreciation would exceed the cost of maintenance, depreciation and coal for a coal plant.

Far from competitive at present Aidan.

Fester,
I said; BAZZ suggested you need 12 times the number for constant output.

That only applies to a country about the size of Australia.
As you reduce the country size or for that matter the administrative
area it increases by a factor which I THINK is inversely proportional
to the square of the area reduction.
It may exponential.

Fester,
>That is 100 CSIRO reactors using 100 times the quantity of hydrogen
>as one Haber plant to generate ammonia at the same rate.
How so? Isn't the amount of hydrogen used directly proportional to the amount of ammonia produced?

>Capacity is the average output. When you look at rooftop solar and compare it to coal for example, you need to match the capacities.

So you looked at http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/renewables-to-be-cheaper-than-coal-even-without-climate-policy-csrio-says-20181221-p50nnq.html and assumed that CSIRO actually meant the opposite of what they said?

>Capacity is the average output.
By whose definition? It's usually taken to mean maximum output!

>When you look at rooftop solar and compare it to coal for example, you need to match the capacities.
I wouldn't call it matching the capacities (I'd call what you're wrongly assuming they're doing "matching the capacities") but you certainly have to look at it on a like for like basis, as CSIRO have done.

>To match coal around the clock solar would also require batteries. Is that cost accounted for in the article?
OF COURSE!

>Not to my knowledge.
Because you're wilfully ignorant!
Instead of reading an SMH article, assuming it to be deceptive, and manipulating the conclusions to "fix" a problem that was never there in the first place, try reading what CSIRO actually wrote:
http://www.csiro.au/~/media/News-releases/2018/Annual-update-finds-renewables-are-cheapest-new-build-power/GenCost2018.pdf

>Similarly with wind you have to combine probabilities to calculate capacity.
>It is not additive as you cannot guarantee maximum output from one plant when another is idle.
If wind were being relied upon exclusively, that would be a problem. But wind is quite well anticorellated with solar. And when the two are combined with storage, it's really not a big problem.

Okay Aidan, how would you cost 2 gigawatts of 24/7 solar? I would think you would need at least 12 gigawatts of generating capacity (I'm happy to use your definition here as what really matters is the bottom line, not semantics). You would also need about 40 gigawatt hours of battery storage.

For the solar: 1gw at 1.75 billion per gw generating capacity * 12

That is 21 billion dollars for the solar installations.

For the battery: 40gwh of storage at 250 million per gwh

That is 10 billion dollars for the batteries.

The total so far is 31 billion for 2 gw of 24/7 solar power with many costs and contingencies still to be factored in.

How would you cost it Aidan (I would appreciate it if you could provide your estimate without personal abuse)?

Dear Aiden,

You opine;

“Stop whinging about Luciferase's research. Nuclear industry lobbyists are better sources of information than the politicians that many others here blindly swallow the lies of. If you object, challenge the content not the source!”

If you take the time to read my post to individual and to properly comprehend my point you will see it was primarily directed at his lack of attribution.

If people are going to copy and paste that is fine but attributing the source is not only the proper thing to do it also negates the rather serious charge of plagiarism.

This may well not be something you particularly care about which is fine but I do and I will call it out whenever I see it.

Dear Hasbeen,

Put a sock in it mate I did directly address the point made by Shellenberger. What more do you want?

Fester, how do you recharge the battery if the next day is overcast ?
But then what if the NEXT day is overcast ?
How do you cope with a week of overcast days ?
I have personally noted five heavy overcast days in a row.

Hi Bazz,

I was trying to calculate a really low figure and still got a result over twice that of nuclear! I think if I could get Aidan to do a costing he would realise that his claim of renewables being cheaper than coal is total rubbish. If I had used the estimates from the CSIRO report Aidan linked, the cost estimate would have been higher.

By the way, "capacity factor" is the important term for linking different energy sources, and that isn't the end of it. I think that 80% is the capacity factor for coal, but because nearly all of the downtime is planned it does not require the multiple overcapacity of renewables.

https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php

From the link:

<Two studies in Germany projected that 48,000 MW of wind power will allow reducing conventional capacity by only 2,000 MW, a 4% capacity credit>

You can see how generous are the assumptions I am making.

Seriously Aidan, have a go (anyone else for that matter). Use solar, wind, solar thermal, hydro, nuclear, batteries, any mix you please, and cost 2gw of 24/7 CO2 free energy supply. (Hint: go nuclear)

Fester, I think the multiplication factor is an educated guesswork
no matter who does the guessing. I proposed that the factor should be
one days consumption times (the number of overcast still days) plus 1.
However by using the whole country to spread the wind and solar farms
around the country you can chase 100% performance.

I suggested a CSIRO modelling using weather stations wherever good
wind sites are located, connect all to the internet, solar farms also
then also feed in live data on consumption by state.
Then shuffle wx stations onto better sites or extra sites until the
number of turbines adjusted until virtual generation equals demand 100%
for 24/7/52 !

Then virtual batteries can be inserted into the network.
After all that the cost would be pretty obvious.

Bazz,

The Chinese and South Koreans are building nuclear for 3 to 5 USD a watt. The figure the CSIRO released had to pass through a Neo-Marxist editing process.

Fester,
I think I see the source of the discrepancy: you're contriving the need for a constant output. If that were what's needed, the economic case for nuclear power would be much stronger.

But demand for electricity in Australia is far from flat: there's a peak in the evening, after which demand falls away sharply and remains low until another (smaller) peak in the morning. Demand is usually low in the afternoon because although consumption is high at that time of day, much of it is being supplied from rooftop solar instead.

The CSIRO report questions the the LCOE calculation basis, saying that as share of renewables rises, more and more firming capacity is needed. It also raises "very different climate policy risks" by various generators, to which a carbon tax should be applied.

So, CSIRO is effectively saying the cost of carbon-taxed, fossil-fueled firming should be included in LCOE calculations in the interim towards an anticipated attainment of 100% renewables firmed with storage. The supposed lower cost of renewables, from my reading, also doesn't mention RE certificate sales so presumably talks only about generation income to operators as being the only cost of renewables.

How Blakers Lu and Stock were given such unquestioning credence without a peer-reviewed paper reflects poorly on CSIRO, which now looks infected with "The Transition" group-think. Below are other non-peer-reviewed papers worth consulting:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/58254e216a496325c2d90145/t/58b80ccd9de4bbe99bd309cb/1488456957086/Blakers+et+al+review.pdf

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/07/future-solar

Aidan,

I agree that there is variation in demand, but there is also a certain amount of power required around the clock, hence my costing challenge to you. As you would realise, the cost of such an endeavour would be many times that from coal, gas or nuclear.

You could build a few Chinese or South Korean nuclear plants for little more than the cost of coal, then you you could run your Haber ammonia plant profitably around the clock with a clear conscience. Without substantial nuclear, going CO2 free is economic suicide.

A new lurk by shameless rent-seekers and stupid politicians at an abandoned mine at Strathalbyn, SA, is to use electricity - from the grid! - to produce compressed air which will be stored in a “purpose-built underground cavern” to be kept at a constant pressure using “hydrostatic head from a water column”. It works a bit like pumped hydro according to the conman running the show. The “commercial demonstration” (only) has already conned the lame Marshall government out of $3 million. It will probably be a huge flop like Flannery's 'thermal rocks’’, another joke perpetrated on gullible South Australia.

The leading lunatics on unreliables, Germans, intend to phase out all coal mines within 19 years, and do the same with their remaining nuclear plants by by 2022. The only uproar after the frowsy frau's announcement came from ratbags claiming that the promised actions were not soon enough.