Another forensic, convincing rebuttal - sorry, demolition - of the renewables farce.
A related question: why has it taken a relative outsider, a journalistic commentator, to state the obvious? Answer: the experts have gone AWOL.
The most notable absence is AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, which was established as part of the energy industry reforms of the 1990s to house the industry expertise on power security and reliability, and to house that expertise in a public, statutory organisation to ensure sensitive and commercially valuable information on security and reliability of power supply was in the public domain, thus making it available for everyone, and thereby encouraging efficient, timely investment in supply rather than monopolistic provision that could exploit its monopoly on information to raise power prices unnecessarily.
AEMO was initially badged as the National Energy Market Operator (NEMMCO), and rebadged as AEMO when the 1990 reforms were tweaked in the mid 2000s.
But the mission remained the same: manage the scheduling of power on the interconnected national grid to ensure the least expensive supply was being used, thus keeping prices down, and report annually on the supply/demand balance to ensure new investment was forthcoming when needed.
An AEMO that was doing its job properly would have drawn attention to the deficiencies of renewables as soon as they became apparent (ie, almost immediately, as it did to some extent in the late 2000s when publishing reports noting the inability of renewables to provide necessary grid stabilisation services).
But, as climate change theories evolved into a perceived planetary life or death mania, and the power supply debate became increasingly politicised, AEMO’s staff increasingly seemed cowed by political pressures to cast their advice as renewables compliant. No speaking truth to power here.
And, of course, many in AEMO were climate true believers, which made the transition to being the cup bearer for renewables less troubling for them.
Now that the climate change theories are losing their shine, and many are saying with considerable justification that the modelling has been greatly exaggerated, AEMO might start to find its true voice, and do what it was established to do.
In the meantime, Chris Uhlmann continues to do their job for them.
Also a lack of courage from organisations like the Institute of Engineers Australia and other industry bodies. They don’t need to enter into the climate debate but are well equipped to comment impartially on the technical feasibility and cost of different energy systems. There is definitely a massive gap between the data being published by the CSIRO and academic institutions and what practitioners are seeing in the field. The collapse of the Hydrogen sector is the most recent example of this. A costly and technically challenging fuel that no one wanted.
Our country’s energy strategy should consider supply chain risk. Today most renewable components are manufactured in China. In contrast, nuclear technology is led by allied countries such as France, Canada and the United States. Our vast uranium reserves enable development of a domestic fuel cycle and associated advanced industry capabilities. The job creation potential from building and operating a homegrown nuclear sector with fuel exports is substantially higher than importing wind and solar equipment from coal powered factories in China.
The decision to base electricity prices on the highest cost provider is an interesting one. In a competitive world, the lowest cost provider would dominate .
There is no market incentive to provide low cost electricity.
Again the ever vigilant Uhlmann dissects and lays bare the fraudulence being perpetuated by our Federal fools, those with clear conflicts of interest and the various useful idiots used by both groups. I think about the net zero/renewables-only/no to nuclear-coal-gas zealots as I imagine the mob cheering the beheadings during the French Revolution: the mob did not want information or fair and balanced trials - it only wanted blood, the total annihilation of those perceived to be the cause of all that was wrong with their world. In their baying for blood and mindless chaos all reason was lost. So while Uhlmann, who's great skill in clarifying the nonsense of renewables as our sole source of energy, continues to challenge mob-think, the question remains. How do we shut the mob up for long enough and get them to digest the facts of life under a renewables-only regime and understand that what they're baying for will ultimately kill the country and be a mass act of self-harm? A change of goat the next election... an unlikely event but alone not guaranteed success given lack of conviction and strong leadership... and then the Senate. Perhaps a winter of discontent... a whole winter as in weeks and months of darkness and cold might drive some sense into the very dim mob currently holding sway. Meantime Chris Uhlmann should be Australian of the Year for his David v Goliath efforts.
I might have missed it, but so far I think you omitted to mention the foundational wind-watchers, Paul Miskelly and Anton Lang, also Jo Nova and the contribution of The Energy Realists of Australia:)
I doubt that a hundred modern university PhDs would be either willing or even capable of grasping your argument, which is based in commonsense & logic, rather than political ideology.
Oh yes. I think we’re in a new dark age, where superstition eclipses rational behaviour, for too many people. It’s evident in the belief that there are more than two sexes, that people can change sex, & that socialism brings prosperity for all, just to name a few. I’ve worked as a geologist in both resource & environmental fields, & while I try to see both sides of this polarised debate, I’ve found that leftists are less tolerant of other’s views. I’ve lost two long term friends as a result.
It’s strange times for sure… our debt is out of control and we expect the East to fund the deficits of nations that don’t know the difference between male & female.
The time, energy and money we spend on luxury beliefs will undoubtedly lead to our downfall.
Higher risk forms of energy represent arbitrage opportunities for owners... And Australia is owned by the Windsor family, wether or not they like to admit it
BTW, there is a 3rd category of sin besides commission and omission: It's usually called the sin of doubt, but what it says is "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) - the principle is that if we doubt whether something is right or wrong, and then go ahead and do it anyway, as if we didn't even care whether it was right or wrong, that is sin.
This whole house of cards on "renewable energy" will come crashing down soon, and real people will get hurt. If you believe Germany, the UK, and California are energy success stories, heaven help you because they are rapidly going down the path to poverty.
Lies and toxic bullshit from the usual sources. EVERY CREDIBLE STUDY ON ENERGY PRICES SHOWS RENEWABLES ARE CHEAPER. Put up or shut up and note the word CREDIBLE!
Anyone game to post a credible source to support the complete bullshit in the piece and the comments? No, not surprising, it is pure fossil fuel propaganda from a collection of fossilised fools still living in the 60s.
Back when engineering was rational, power exporting plants donated a percentage of their output to the grid n the range of 6 to 10 percent of output to supply the energy to operate the grid. This didn’t include the energy required to run the non-dispatchable sources, because all electrical installations require regulated power.
Right. And it's also paid for in several kinds of environmental damages and energy spent mining, refining, and transporting, beside the capital spent in manufacturing.
Then there's the opportunity cost - all that capital could have been invested in more efficient and dependable power production.
Another forensic, convincing rebuttal - sorry, demolition - of the renewables farce.
A related question: why has it taken a relative outsider, a journalistic commentator, to state the obvious? Answer: the experts have gone AWOL.
The most notable absence is AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, which was established as part of the energy industry reforms of the 1990s to house the industry expertise on power security and reliability, and to house that expertise in a public, statutory organisation to ensure sensitive and commercially valuable information on security and reliability of power supply was in the public domain, thus making it available for everyone, and thereby encouraging efficient, timely investment in supply rather than monopolistic provision that could exploit its monopoly on information to raise power prices unnecessarily.
AEMO was initially badged as the National Energy Market Operator (NEMMCO), and rebadged as AEMO when the 1990 reforms were tweaked in the mid 2000s.
But the mission remained the same: manage the scheduling of power on the interconnected national grid to ensure the least expensive supply was being used, thus keeping prices down, and report annually on the supply/demand balance to ensure new investment was forthcoming when needed.
An AEMO that was doing its job properly would have drawn attention to the deficiencies of renewables as soon as they became apparent (ie, almost immediately, as it did to some extent in the late 2000s when publishing reports noting the inability of renewables to provide necessary grid stabilisation services).
But, as climate change theories evolved into a perceived planetary life or death mania, and the power supply debate became increasingly politicised, AEMO’s staff increasingly seemed cowed by political pressures to cast their advice as renewables compliant. No speaking truth to power here.
And, of course, many in AEMO were climate true believers, which made the transition to being the cup bearer for renewables less troubling for them.
Now that the climate change theories are losing their shine, and many are saying with considerable justification that the modelling has been greatly exaggerated, AEMO might start to find its true voice, and do what it was established to do.
In the meantime, Chris Uhlmann continues to do their job for them.
Also a lack of courage from organisations like the Institute of Engineers Australia and other industry bodies. They don’t need to enter into the climate debate but are well equipped to comment impartially on the technical feasibility and cost of different energy systems. There is definitely a massive gap between the data being published by the CSIRO and academic institutions and what practitioners are seeing in the field. The collapse of the Hydrogen sector is the most recent example of this. A costly and technically challenging fuel that no one wanted.
Our country’s energy strategy should consider supply chain risk. Today most renewable components are manufactured in China. In contrast, nuclear technology is led by allied countries such as France, Canada and the United States. Our vast uranium reserves enable development of a domestic fuel cycle and associated advanced industry capabilities. The job creation potential from building and operating a homegrown nuclear sector with fuel exports is substantially higher than importing wind and solar equipment from coal powered factories in China.
What we have a shortage of coal!
The decision to base electricity prices on the highest cost provider is an interesting one. In a competitive world, the lowest cost provider would dominate .
There is no market incentive to provide low cost electricity.
I was wondering about that strange policy on the wholesale price. Who set that policy?
Again the ever vigilant Uhlmann dissects and lays bare the fraudulence being perpetuated by our Federal fools, those with clear conflicts of interest and the various useful idiots used by both groups. I think about the net zero/renewables-only/no to nuclear-coal-gas zealots as I imagine the mob cheering the beheadings during the French Revolution: the mob did not want information or fair and balanced trials - it only wanted blood, the total annihilation of those perceived to be the cause of all that was wrong with their world. In their baying for blood and mindless chaos all reason was lost. So while Uhlmann, who's great skill in clarifying the nonsense of renewables as our sole source of energy, continues to challenge mob-think, the question remains. How do we shut the mob up for long enough and get them to digest the facts of life under a renewables-only regime and understand that what they're baying for will ultimately kill the country and be a mass act of self-harm? A change of goat the next election... an unlikely event but alone not guaranteed success given lack of conviction and strong leadership... and then the Senate. Perhaps a winter of discontent... a whole winter as in weeks and months of darkness and cold might drive some sense into the very dim mob currently holding sway. Meantime Chris Uhlmann should be Australian of the Year for his David v Goliath efforts.
I might have missed it, but so far I think you omitted to mention the foundational wind-watchers, Paul Miskelly and Anton Lang, also Jo Nova and the contribution of The Energy Realists of Australia:)
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/australian-pioneer-wind-watchers
https://joannenova.com.au/
The Energy Realists
https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php/search/categories/general/list-of-briefing-notes
And Triggerwarming, a particularly good book on climate and energy.
https://www.amazon.com.au/s?k=Rafe+Champion&i=stripbooks&crid=GZ66NWUYZ193&sprefix=rafe+champion%2Cstripbooks%2C262&ref=nb_sb_noss
And don't miss Pink Flower: Growing Up In Mao's China.
Superb summary Chris.
I doubt that a hundred modern university PhDs would be either willing or even capable of grasping your argument, which is based in commonsense & logic, rather than political ideology.
I think it’s fear more than capability that prevents them from grasping reality.
Oh yes. I think we’re in a new dark age, where superstition eclipses rational behaviour, for too many people. It’s evident in the belief that there are more than two sexes, that people can change sex, & that socialism brings prosperity for all, just to name a few. I’ve worked as a geologist in both resource & environmental fields, & while I try to see both sides of this polarised debate, I’ve found that leftists are less tolerant of other’s views. I’ve lost two long term friends as a result.
It’s strange times for sure… our debt is out of control and we expect the East to fund the deficits of nations that don’t know the difference between male & female.
The time, energy and money we spend on luxury beliefs will undoubtedly lead to our downfall.
Higher risk forms of energy represent arbitrage opportunities for owners... And Australia is owned by the Windsor family, wether or not they like to admit it
Australia is a stupid brain dead country these days. Where is Sir John Monash when you need him?
Brilliant piece
The subsidies and propping up by government needs to stop now for renewables.
Great post and excellent points! Thank you.
BTW, there is a 3rd category of sin besides commission and omission: It's usually called the sin of doubt, but what it says is "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) - the principle is that if we doubt whether something is right or wrong, and then go ahead and do it anyway, as if we didn't even care whether it was right or wrong, that is sin.
This whole house of cards on "renewable energy" will come crashing down soon, and real people will get hurt. If you believe Germany, the UK, and California are energy success stories, heaven help you because they are rapidly going down the path to poverty.
Lies and toxic bullshit from the usual sources. EVERY CREDIBLE STUDY ON ENERGY PRICES SHOWS RENEWABLES ARE CHEAPER. Put up or shut up and note the word CREDIBLE!
Moronical
Anyone game to post a credible source to support the complete bullshit in the piece and the comments? No, not surprising, it is pure fossil fuel propaganda from a collection of fossilised fools still living in the 60s.
Yep, as usual with the fossil fools, no attempt to
produce the data, just lies, propaganda and absolute fucking bullshit.
Put up or shut up? No? Nothing there, just a vacuum into which the usual idiots deposit their verminous excrement.
Blind!....you certainly are.
Back when engineering was rational, power exporting plants donated a percentage of their output to the grid n the range of 6 to 10 percent of output to supply the energy to operate the grid. This didn’t include the energy required to run the non-dispatchable sources, because all electrical installations require regulated power.
Right. And it's also paid for in several kinds of environmental damages and energy spent mining, refining, and transporting, beside the capital spent in manufacturing.
Then there's the opportunity cost - all that capital could have been invested in more efficient and dependable power production.