A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



Australian Speakers Agency


The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


The old new Rudd: tinkering with useless schemes while ignoring the coal reality

Rudd has a chance to dump a dumb policy, but won’t

Australia’s overpriced, unneccessary carbon tax will become even more overpriced next Monday (from $23 to $24.15 per ton). A spokesman tells The Australian that the all-new Labor cabinet will reconsider it all next week and may bring in the trading scheme sooner rather than later. At the moment the Gillard-fixed-carbon-price will shift to a floating price (lately, a sinking price) in two years time in mid 2015. The current EU price is $6 AUD.

The Australian understands Mr Rudd will look at all aspects of the implementation of the $23 a tonne price on carbon as a priority. The reinstated Prime Minister sought to cement his commitment to tackling climate change, declaring he had “long been committed to a carbon price”.

Rudd mistakes token efforts in China for “action”:

He accused the Coalition of inconsistency on the issue and cited action in China as evidence “carbon pricing is now becoming more and more of a global reality”.

The real global reality and action in China is that it is building more coal powered stations than anywhere, and is one of the largest coal burning nations in the world. China (and India too) are not slowing down, and we are an inconsequential blip. We are the largest exporter, but only because all the larger producers of coal use all their coal up for themselves. China digs up and burns  12 times as much coal as we export. Who are we kidding?

The bottom line: any carbon scheme is useless, unpopular, vote-killing attempt to stop storms

Nothing can compete with coal, it looks set to become the primary fuel of the planet — overtaking oil in the next few years (see below). Our economy and lifestyle depend on it. Only 30% of Australian voters want action and are prepared to pay anything at all for it (and they are already voting Labor or Green). Most Australians care more about the economy than the environment. When asked about the environment, they care more about litter than air.  The carbon tax is a job-killing pointless scheme which won’t reduce global emissions by anything large enough to measure, and 1,100 scientific papers show it can’t change the weather, even if it did. If China is adopting a carbon price, it’s only because it will suck even more money out of the West and into the East. They’re not reducing emissions, and they’re not stupid.

How small is Australian coal?

From The Silent Giant Coal Monster: 

“Coal Exports are Australia’s largest single export industry. In 2009 Australia produced for sale ~335 million tonnes of coal, of which ~261Mt were exported leaving 74Mt for internal power generation.  But large as that is, what China produces blows that number away.

In 2009, entirely for domestic consumption, Chinese production was just over 3 billion tonnes of hard and brown coal. China is consuming about 40 times what Australia is. “ (Thanks to Cohenite)

China wins the prize for new coal fired electric power.

The map shows new coal fired plants that are already approved for construction as of Nov 2012. (World Resources Institute Report). (Thanks to TonyfromOz)

Coal looks set to become the planet’s primary fuel

Demand for coal is growing and it’s share in world energy production is higher than anytime in the last 40 years:

Global demand for coal is expected to grow to 8.9 billion tons by 2016 from 7.9 billion tons this year, with the bulk of new demand — about 700 million tons — coming from China, according to a Peabody Energy study. China is expected to add 240 gigawatts, the equivalent of adding about 160 new coal-fired plants to the 620 operating now, within four years. During that period, India will add an additional 70 gigawatts through more than 46 plants.

“If you poke your head outside of the U.S., coal-fired plants are being built left and right,” said William L. Burns, an energy analyst with Johnson Rice in New Orleans. “Coal is still the cheapest fuel source.”

In all, coal use is expected to increase 50 percent by 2035, said Milton Catelin, chief executive of the World Coal Association in London.

“Last year, coal represented 30 percent of world energy, and that’s the highest share it has had since 1969,” he said.

Within a year or two, coal will surpass oil as the planet’s primary fuel, Mr. Catelin predicted.

The budget hole if Rudd cuts the carbon tax from $24 to $6 would be about $15 billion

According to Peter Ryan, business editor of the ABC:

The problem for Kevin Rudd is just how low to go with the carbon price. The recession in Europe means less industrial output, that means less pollution, companies have been buying fewer carbon permits so the price over there has dived dramatically to around just $6 a tonne.

So the suggestion that with the stroke of a pen the carbon price would just switch to be in line with the floating European scheme might be good news for industry and consumers, but it could put a hole in the Government’s revenue forecasts – perhaps as much as $15 billion. And the Coalition says this would blow another black hole into the budget.

Remember, the money we are talking about is not so much a “$15b hole in the government budget”, as $15b drawn out of the productive economy toward misdirected, ineffective ends and unproductive jobs. In that sense, the government would save Australians much more than $15 billion if they chopped the whole scheme up and sequestered it in a large unused mineshaft.

More information:

9.5 out of 10 based on 73 ratings

87 comments to The old new Rudd: tinkering with useless schemes while ignoring the coal reality

  • #
    Peter C

    There’s a hole in your budget Dear Kevin, Dear kevim


    • #

      Could not help expanding on Peter C´s text.

      There´s a hole in the budget dear Liza, dear Liza
      there´s a hole in the buget dear Liza , a hole.

      Then fix it dear Kevin, dear Kevin, dear Kevin
      then fix it dear Kevin, fix it.

      With what shall I fix it dear Liza, dear Liza
      with what shall I fix it dear Liza, with what.

      With a coal tax dear Kevin, dear Kevin, dear Kevin
      with a coal tax dear Kevin, use a coal tax.

      How shall I get it dear Liza, dear Liza.
      how shall I get dear Liza, how.

      With a law dear Kevin, dear Kevin, dear Kevin
      with a law, dear Kevin, use a law.

      How shall i pass it dear Liza, dear Liza
      how shall I pass it dear Liza, how.

      With a lie dear Kevin, dear Kevin, dear Kevin
      with a lie dear Kevin use a lie.

      From where shall i get it dear Liza, dear Liza,
      from where shall I get dear Liza, from Where.

      From the BOM dear Kevin, dear Kevin,dear Kevin,
      from the BOM, dear Kevin, use the BOM.

      They want money dear Liza, dear Liza,
      they want money dear Liza, money.

      Use the budget dear Kevin, dear Kevin,dear Kevin
      from the budget dear Kevin, use the budget.

      There´s a hole in the budget ……………… ad infinitum.


    • #

      Spot on Peter!

      If you float the carbon price you should float the compensation too. That is the only way you avoid budget black holes when the Global price falls under an ETS. But Rudd won’t do that because he’s a populist. Tell em what they want to hear – not what they need to know. Somebody please point out the “Emperor” has no clothes!

      As Jo puts it ….

      Remember, the money we are talking about is not so much a “$15b hole in the government budget”, as $15b drawn out of the productive economy toward misdirected, ineffective ends and unproductive jobs. In that sense, the government would save Australians much more than $15 billion if they chopped the whole scheme up and sequestered it in a large unused mineshaft

      This is the part most people don’t realise. It’s also the part the Keynesian biased economic commentary in this country largely ignore when explaining why our Federal Government now has structural deficits where we had regular Budget supluses with about $100 Billion less in annual tax receipts prior to 2007.

      Most Economists will excuse the current government for this situation by saying revenue has fallen due to falling commodity prices or post GFC global uncertainty. But that’s only because the government chose wildly optimistic budget assumptions on Commodity prices to support the spending spree.

      Federal government Tax Revenues have not fallen. They just fell short of unrealistic budgets which were an excuse for this government to fleece more tax from the productive economy and/or grow the economically unproductive bureaucracy, propping up inefficient industries or subsidising green energy schemes and so forth.


  • #

    I had a Rudd supporter today rejoicing in the Milky Bar Kid’s return saying “Australia will recover with a sensible leader like Rudd”
    I just stood open mouthed and was (rarely) stuck for words, and the clincher was the person is a small business owner!


  • #

    Not quite “chopping the whole scheme up and sequestered it in a large unused mineshaft,” but …

    Carbon credits smoke screen

    “Local business owner Charlie McShane has been pushed into a corner by what he says is a hypocritical federal Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), and as a result had to burn more than 250 tonnes of timber over the weekend.

    The massive bonfire which stretched into the distance was also used as a form of protest and an attempt to draw attention to his plight.

    He argues that since his forest is capturing approximately 8000 tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere each year, the less forest he logs for the mill the more carbon is captured and, under the current initiative, this should be rewarded with carbon credits which can then be sold.

    “A lot of the reason I am doing this is to bring attention to the hypocrisy of the Gillard governments policy,” Mr McShane said.

    “They pretty much told me my trees don’t capture any carbon, which is news to me and several scientists out there.”


  • #

    Carbon trading in China hasn’t got off the ground and is, according to the tenor of this report, somewhat of a complete shambles at the moment.
    It probably won’t get any better as the Great Catastrophic Global Warming debacle slowly grinds it’s inevitable way into oblivion over the next few years.

    chinadialogue has this article on china’s present situation re carbon trading.

    Data gaps hobble carbon trading.

    Vital ingredients missing

    Carbon trading relies on data. In order to set caps and allocate appropriate quotas, you must have comprehensive and reliable data.

    So far, that is proving elusive, as a vivid description from the Tianjin official we spoke to suggests: “Top-down calculations and bottom-up calculations don’t match up, nor do the figures from industry associations and those from emission inventories.” This is inevitable when statistics are collected over different scopes, and through different channels.

    Data from businesses is not itemised, and – as energy audits are still uncommon – data verification is extremely hard.

    Most provinces and cities have energy-saving supervision centres, which oversee the reporting of energy use statistics by high-consuming companies. In Guangdong, energy use is reported quarterly, for example, while in Shanghai it happens monthly.

    According to the newspaper Southern Weekend, preparatory meetings for the carbon-trading trials held in June last year failed to provide concrete guidelines on data-gathering techniques for the new projects. Methods for calculating greenhouse-gas emissions at the business and facilities level, coordination of reporting of data, avoiding imposing excess costs on business, the use of third party auditors – all of these still need to be determined.

    In the long term, this data base won’t only be useful for carbon trading – improvements made here can feed into other information-gathering efforts, such as greenhouse-gas emission inventories and energy audits. But at the moment, without solid company-level emissions data, there is no basis on which to allocate emission quotas.

    Even if they had the necessary figures, the trial locations still lack decent methodology for making allocations. There are concerns that an excessively simple approach could penalise firms that are already performing well by creating a situation where firms with historically high emissions levels get higher quotas – they are allowed to emit more – while their more energy-efficient counterparts are given less room for manoeuvre. Some researchers have advocated using the benchmarking system applied in the European Union’s emissions trading scheme, where quotas are allocated according to a company’s energy efficiency. But to do this requires a lot of basic data on company-level emissions.

    Most of the trial locations are trying to win support from businesses for proposed allocation methods. But as this will result in increased costs, progress has been slow. Although local governments have been given room to experiment, the lack of a firm foundation on which to build has left officials at a loss and under pressure.

    One local development and reform official said: “The reason why we have ideas about carbon trading but no actual practice is because there’s no legal basis, no methods for running it. Managing carbon trading should be a legislative issue, decided by the People’s Congress, with the design of calculation methods done at the top level.”

    Another official named Lin, from Guangdong, said that “Overlap between central and local government on carbon trading design is a big problem. Just designating trial locations and letting local governments work it out for themselves is wasteful. With some of the work, including reporting of company emissions, it would be better if one person took the lead. Central and local research bodies should work together on the basics.”

    Lessons from elsewhere offer scant comfort. Even in the European Union and California, where there was better data-gathering and coordination with existing policy tools, it took several years to get carbon trading off the ground. China’s trial carbon markets will struggle to start on time.

    Much more in this article on the Chinese carbon trading situation which in many provinces is a very low priority as economic factors take precedence over any western do-gooder attempts to alter and force the world to fit their own mythological, fairies at the bottom of the garden level of beliefs on how humanity, all 7 billion of us, should be forced to think, how we must act, and what we will be allowed to believe.


    • #

      Heavy handed, top down, command and control never works in the real world. To much stuff just happens in real time and, when it happens, it takes too much time for the data to be acquired and sent to the central planners. They are always working with too little too late. That means, no matter how good intentioned, they will respond to late with the wrong decisions every time. It cannot be fixed except devolving the responsibility and freedom to choose and act down to the individual economic actor.

      Only variety can consume variety. Top down command and control simply cannot cope no matter how many boots are on how many necks. It takes a freely reasoned response on a local level every time!

      Bottom line: All grand plans fail. The grander the plan the greater the failure. No exceptions! Especially when taken in full context of things both seen and unseen.


  • #

    An ETS is infinitely worse than the carbon (dioxide) tax because it creates an artificial property right, the current EU price of only $6 AUD notwithstanding.
    A tax can be repealed as easily as it is imposed whereas an ETS is with us forever.
    If they expect the price to remain as low or lower, why have it at all?


    • #

      If they expect the price to remain as low or lower, why have it at all?

      Because they were expecting the EU price to be higher, not lower. The Australian fixed price of AUD 23 / Tonne rising to AUD 29 / Tonne by 2015 was based upon the projected EU price in 2015 (supposedly independantly assessed). Then in Australian politics we have the current minority Labor government sharing power with the Greens. The Greens wanted the higher price as only a higher price would create the incentive for business to reduce emmissions. At $6 AUD that ain’t gonna happen.


    • #

      A tax can be repealed as easily as it is imposed whereas an ETS is with us forever.

      Fortunately that is not correct. An ETS would regard carbon credits as the equivalent of an individual transferable quota (ITQ). An ITQ is an allocated privilege of landing a specified portion of the total annual fish catch in the form of quota shares.

      As Jim Rose explains:

      Fisheries regulators consider ITQ quota shares not to be property, but to convey a privilege to catch an amount of fish or shellfish in a given year that can be renewed or revoked.

      ITQs are quota shares may represent a different resource quantity every year as the total allocated catch may vary from year to year.

      Nonetheless, the ability to sell or lease ITQ shares implies a more enduring, if not permanent, fishing access privilege.

      No one has yet successfully argued in court that the ability to modify an ITQ program constitutes grounds for a regulatory taking in the USA.

      Few U.S. banks few private banks accept ITQs as collateral for loans, primarily because they are not comfortable with the existing system for determining the history of previous liens and because banks have difficulty in establishing the value of ITQs.

      The collateral value of Alaska halibut and sablefish IFQ shares is generally about 20 percent of their market value.

      The Australian courts have found that fishing entitlements, although similar in terms of the privileges conferred, are not the common law property right of profit á prendre. They are a statutory entitlement.

      A profit á prendre is a right to take part of the soil, minerals, natural produce including fish and wild animals. The person does not own the thing gathered whilst it is on the land, but has a right to gather it.

      Compensation for modification and extinguishment of these rights depends on whether there is compensation payable under applicable legislation or on whether the plaintiffs can rely on constitutional guarantees of acquisition of property on just terms.

      The courts have clearly indicated that fishing entitlements are rights created by government as means of regulating the fishing industry and are thus governed by the legislation that created them.

      By annulling that legislation, the entitlement no longer exists. By modifying the legislation, the entitlement is redefined.

      Statutory licences are ‘inherently susceptible’ to modification or extinguishment.

      See ITQs and Property Rights A review of Australian case law by Sevaly Sen, Barry Kaufmann and Gerry Geen Fisheries Economics, Research and Management Pty. Ltd. Australia


  • #

    Listening to various MSM outlets, I am struck by the collective dissection of the demise of Juliar. Much is said, gender is often alluded to, but as with so many things, what is not said is often of more relevance. I observe a strenuous bypass of even a notional sniff or oblique mention of the carbon tax lie in particular, and carbon taxation in general. God help us. Is it non-PC to talk about this, to stare it straight in the face and call it for what it is – the damndest political lie of modern time?


  • #

    This article reminds me again that the anti-coal movement is insane.

    It is an unequivocal fact that today coal is the lowest cost form of energy, energy that is used to manufacture many of the components of our SHELTER, to deliver WARMTH or COOLING to protect us from the weather, to process FOOD, to process MEDICINES, VACCINES and HEALTH CARE, to publish books and papers and to power computers to EDUCATE and facilitate SOCIALIZATION.

    Despite this the anti-coal movement preaches a dogmatic belief that the the pretend ability to control the weather is the number one priority above and well beyond shelter, food, medicines, vaccine, health care, education and socialization.


  • #

    Well, we can hope that Australia doesn’t become like Europe, and especially the UK.
    From my Real Science comment: Having adopted a climate program similar to what the US House passed in 2009, the UK is at just the very beginning and super easy part of a 40 year journey into energy and economic oblivion. Maybe it’s poetic justice and self-loathing for their centuries of imperialism, and now they will become an international pygmy.

    Anyway, the news:
    (Reuters) – Britain’s risk of electricity blackouts by 2015 is more serious than previously thought, regulator Ofgem warned on Thursday.
    The country’s spare electricity supply margin could fall as low as 2 percent in 2015/16, down from around 14 percent currently. Last year Ofgem gave an estimate of 4 percent.
    “Electricity supplies are set to tighten faster than previously expected in the middle of this decade,” Ofgem said in a report, adding that the chance of supply disruptions would rise to one in 12 years in 2015/16 from one in 47 years now.
    Britain has seen a vast number of power plants close and being mothballed due to emissions-reduction policies and the loss-making economics of gas-fired power plants.


    • #


      Contrary to what the MSM reports, I do not think you are correct. The lights will not go out in Britain even all the planned closures of nuclear and coal-fired power stations are carried out. There are two reasons, one the official line and the other I believe is what the real backup plan.

      The official line is the UK are moth-balling, not decommissioning some of the power stations.

      The unofficial source it that there already exists lots of backup power supply. In Britain there is the Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR) scheme to provide power in case a conventional power station is taken off line or (increasingly) the wind does not blow. Mostly from diesel generators, businesses are paid to hold capacity in reserve, to switch on at short-term notice for which they receive a very high operating fee per kwh. What people do not realise is that although STOR capacity in 2011/12 was only around 3.2GW, total bids have been as high as 9GW. With less spare conventional spare capacity we use generators. As non-transport diesel carries a red dye, I believe we have a watermelon energy policy in Britain – Green on the outside, red on the inside.

      There are two issues with using STOR capacity. First, it is enormously expensive. In 2011/12 it was around $350 per MwH. Higher utilisation would bring the price down, but fuel alone for a small diesel generator is around $230 per MwH. Standby fees pushes this unit cost up more. Second, it is enormously energy inefficient. That is, in the short-term there will be no blackouts, but large increases in electricity bills, and higher CO2 emissions as well. This is why Government ministers are so confident in declaring no blackouts but will explain why.

      This should bridge the gap until shale gas comes on-stream, with new gas-fired power stations. After months of delay, it was announced yesterday that the North of England alone has enough gas to meet all the UKs current demands for 50 years.


      • #

        Hi Maicbeancounter,

        Richard Verney on a wuwt thread, in response to a similar post of mine, has this: The energy market has become so distorted in the UK as a consequence of (i) the subsidies given to renewables to encourage tehir roll out, (ii) the minimum floor price paid for the energy they produce, and (iii) the payments being made to compensate them for not producing energy, that even if local shale was to come on the market, it is doubtful whether it would significantly drive down energy costs, at least not in the short term, since if it were to be used in priority to renewables, there would be huge compensation payments to be made to those engaged in renewables which would significantly erode the cost benefit of shale.

        One often hears government spokes-people suggesting that the UK will not see the energy revolution seen in the States, and/or that shale will not significantly reduce energy costs. There is some element of truth in this, and the government is not explaining why. It is because they have screwed up the energy market and there would be huge compensation payments to be made if shale were to be exploited to the full.


        • #

          That analysis is probably correct. Shale will not drive down energy costs from what they are today with all the renewables policies. What is more, it will could be five years before it makes an impact.
          However, I am optimistic in the longer term. Why?
          1. Slightly more sceptical voices are being heard. Peter Lilley is on the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, and Michael Fallon (a sensible neutral) is a junior minister in the climate and energy department.
          2. Tim Yeo, who has outside income from the renewables sector, was forced to step down earlier this month as Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee following a Sunday Times sting. This was two weeks after admitting climate change was not the world’s most pressing problem.
          3. The last Secretary of State for Energy & Climate, Chris Huhne, has just served a prison sentence for getting his wife to take points for a speeding offence he committed. But, as Peter Lilley said,

          Huhne’s greatest offence was not having his hands on the wheel but putting his foot on the brake of shale gas.

          4. In a couple of years, when the National Grid pays a fortune to pay for inefficient diesel engines to keep the lights on, people will see that in blocking anything to do with fossil fuels, the environmentalists have actually made it worse.


  • #
    Fox from Melbourne

    Coal isn’t the evil problem that the Greens say it is. Its probably the solution if your a “true believer” why because when you burn it in power stations like the ones that China uses it releases Globe Cooling Gases. The very same Globe Cooling Gasesthat the ABC which produces about 30 to 50 articles a day about the environment posted an article that state that all those hurricanes that were caused because of Globe warming were actually caused by following what the scientists said to do and reduce emissions of pollution. Please have a look for your selves.
    At <a href=";
    So if your worried about a warm world shouldn't we be polluting those "human-emitted aerosols"(Globe Cooling Gases) that and I quote “anthropogenic emissions (particularly of aerosols) through most of the last century is found to have reduced hurricane activity,” and that has a “cooling impact”. To stop the world from warm. Don’t you think?
    But just one question if listening to the Scientists help to “ramps up hurricanes” that killed people and causes 100’s of Billions of Dollars of hurricane damages, leaving millions of people home less over the years. Listening to them again to tackle Carbon pollution just how much will this cost us to the nears Billion please and how many lives will these Green ideas cost? I bet it won’t be Al Gore or Bob Blown or Christine Milne just us poor dum voters and our family’s or homes and jobs. The scientists have gotten it wrong before true believes people die because it that. Shouldn’t we just be a little SKEPTICAL this time round just encase they’ve got it wrong again. You know like using models that have been wrong about what the weather has actually doing for the last 15-17 years. Should be the first clue for all of us don’t you think true believers? But if your worried about the storms and wild weather please just leave China alone so they can put those aerosols sorry Globe Cooling Gases back on the job so they can fix up the stuff up the Scientist made last time they thought the world’s climate was in trouble, remember the world was dangerously cooling and they had to stop it because that would be the end of it for all of us. That was 40 years ago and guess what. We’re still here.


    • #

      Your sarcastic comment is correct about aerosols having a cooling effect according to AGW theory. But that is also old-fashioned pollution. When turning a blind eye to Chinese coal usage, the greens do not check that the new coal-fired power stations have the scrubbers that prevent most of the particulates reaching the atmosphere, or on the quality of the coal being used. When you see the smog over the Chinese cities how much is due to not imposing old-fashioned low-cost pollution controls?

      By the way, the UNIPCC AR4 appear to have nicely fiddled the figures on aerosols to project a message. When I crunched the numbers they gave in Wm-2 on the positive and negative forcings, I found two things that were odd:-

      1. The net impact was (1.60 Wm-2) was roughly equal to the CO2 forcings (1.66 Wm-2).
      2. There are huge error bars between different forcings. But when I added up the range of errors on the positive forcings (CO2, CH4 etc) the figure was exactly 40% of the forcings value. When I added up the range of errors on the negative forcings (aerosols) the figure was exactly 200% of the forcings value.

      In auditing, a sign of fabricated figures, is when the numbers fall into place too easily. Another is when the totals do not add up. The net total reported misses out solar irradiance.

      The Draft AR5 (page 8, line 20) states the impact of aerosols to be 0.7 Wm-2, down from 1.2 Wm-2 in AR4. Yet in the last 5-6 years aerosols from China will have gone up at least 50%.


  • #

    A couple of weeks back, someone called me a dinosaur, harking back to the old technology of getting electrical power from coal fired sources.

    I was so proud.

    So, let’s look at it then shall we, that dinosaur technology we have as coal fired power generation.

    Let’s actually look how far coal fired power has come and just how much of a dinosaur it really is.

    Let’s compare that old dinosaur Bayswater with one of the new technology USC plants being constructed in China, and Germany, and India, and in some of the richer Middle East Countries.

    Bayswater (mid/late 70’s technology) 4 Units each running a 640MW Generator. Nameplate Capacity 2640MW. Power delivery 17,000GWH. Capacity Factor 75%. Coal Burned 7.5 million tons. Coal burning efficiency 35%. CO2 emitted 21.45 million tons.

    New Tech USC. 2010+ technology. 2 Units each running a 1000MW Generator. Nameplate Capacity 2000MW. Power delivery 16,500GWH. Capacity Factor 93%. Coal burned 5 Million tons, Coal burning efficiency 44%. CO2 emitted 14.3 Million tons.

    The Chinese are actually working on introducing a 1350MW generator.

    So, here we have only 2 units instead of 4, less nameplate capacity and almost the same total power delivered, and a huge reduction in CO2 emissions.

    So keeping in mind that I’m a dinosaur, what should I be looking at for power replacement.

    A fan on a pole 2.5MW to 3MW most constructed. 30% Capacity Factor.

    Rooftop solar. Probably 8KW Maximum. 10 to 15% Capacity Factor.

    Commercial PV Solar. Tiny total Output at a best case 15% Capacity Factor.

    Commercial Concentrating Solar, without heat retention 50MW at 17% to maybe 20% Capacity Factor, and with heat retention 17MW at 62% Capacity Factor.

    And it’s me who is the bloody dinosaur.

    Heavens above, that old Bayswater dinosaur craps all over this supposed new technology.



    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Tony, you are too generous to wind turbines. 30% capacity factor is beyond most sites.
      The UK runs between 21 and 26%, Denmark a little less, and Germany below 16% on-shore.


    • #
      Keith L

      Worth mentioning that dinosaurs were around for 150 Million years and it took a meteorite to kill them.
      We have been around for two million years and are in the process if dying out from stupidity.
      The last band of humans will probably be found huddled together frozen solid outside a dormant power station perched on a pile of unburned coal and sheltering from the snow under a bunch of ‘Stop Global Warming’ banners.


    • #

      It’s still Old Technology , from the seventies, (albeit not coal powered) that’s transmitting to us from the very outer edge of the solar system. 20 Watts and were still picking up its signals, from Voyagers 1 & 2 .

      Keep track of their journey as they continue to hurtle At about 90,000 km per hour here:-
      Where are the Voyagers


      • #

        Voyager One is currently 18 and a half Billion Km away, travelling at around 62,000KPH.

        That’s, umm, 17 Light Hours away.

        It’s been away from Earth for just short of 36 years.

        It has a small, well, tiny really, nuclear power plant to supply power for it’s 11 Scientific experiments, two of which are unserviceable, and a further 4 now intentionally disabled, and also power for the computers and for communications.

        That Nuclear power plant will be in operation until 2025, 48 years since launch.

        Does that tell you something about using the nuclear process to generate electrical power.

        3 Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators, each around 5 feet long, powered by Plutonium 238 Oxide pellets in spheres. The heat generated flows through semiconductor thermocouples generating a total of 470 Watts from all 3 RTG’s.

        Perfect for this application.



    • #

      Where I mentioned this:

      New Tech USC. 2010+ technology. 2 Units each running a 1000MW Generator. Nameplate Capacity 2000MW. Power delivery 16,500GWH. Capacity Factor 93%. Coal burned 5 Million tons, Coal burning efficiency 44%. CO2 emitted 14.3 Million tons.

      There’s actually a perceived problem with this, and that’s the unbelievably, humungous, immense, cost of these plants now.

      To actually construct one of them here in Australia would cost in the vicinity of $4.2 Billion, and because it’s not considered renewable, then there’s no subsidy from the government for the construction.

      So knowing that there is this government subsidy, then the people who will be looking to get into the power generating business, you know, those private enterprise Companies looking to cash in on altruistically do something to alleviate this awful problem with CO2 will now sink their $4.2 Billion into fully renewable wind plants instead.

      For that same amount of money they will get 2 wind plants similar to the one proposed for King Island.

      But wait, there’s more. Remember they now get half that money back as a gift from the Government’s renewable energy whatchamacallit. So now, that original outlay on their behalf, being that $4.2 Billion is equalled by the Government, so that means they can construct 4 of these wind plants.

      Hey, how good is that?

      We get $8.4 Billion worth of free power from the wind, and the enty pruner only has to stump up the original $4.2 Billion.

      So now we get four of these all singing all dancing wind plants.

      That’s 4 X 500MW wind plants, and say, will you look at that, it’s the same power as for that stupid moronic dinosaur coal fired power plant, 2000MW.

      See, I told you it was good.

      So now, when these 800 huge towers come on line, we get all that luvverly power.

      Hmm! But do we?

      2000MW at (a hoped for) capacity factor of 30%, and hey, I can be generous here and concede them their 30%.

      So now, the total power supplied to the grids over a full year comes in at 5,300GWH.

      Hmm! The coal fired plant delivers 16,500GWH, three times as much power.

      With the 4 wind plants, there will be days when they might run really well, and deliver up to perhaps 60% of its power, and there will also be days when perhaps only 40 of those towers will be turning, delivering barely 100 MW, but over a full year it’s the equivalent of delivering its full rated power for 100 days, or extrapolated down even further for a tick over 7 hours a day.

      Hmm! The coal fired plant delivers its full rated power for 338 days, and the only time it’s not delivering power is when one unit is shut down for maintenance, and hey, one unit at Stanwell ran for three years at max revs delivering its full power ….. for THREE years.

      The wind plants could feasibly last for 25 years, and hey, I can be generous here and say it will run at the 30% CF for those 25 years, considering the fact that they now lose considerable amounts of power after 15 years.

      So, those wind plants at their 25 years will deliver over the life span an amount of power of 132TWH. Huge!

      Hmm!. The coal fired plant has a life of 50 years, so will deliver 825TWH, six and a quarter times the power from the wind plants.

      OK, here we have effectively spent double the money on the wind plants because after all, the taxpayer has footed the bill for the other $4.2 Billion in the renewable subsidy paid out originally, and for that amount we get considerably less power for a considerably shorter life time of power delivery, on a sporadic basis, and find that the power is infinitely more expensive, and you do the Math on just the recovery of Capital cost extrapolated out over the lifetime power delivery to recover just that capital cost.

      Now, you tell me which proposal will get approval in this day and age.

      Put these two proposals to Kevin Rudd and tell me how many blinks of his eye will there be before he makes the selection as to which proposal to approve.



  • #
    Keith L

    Neither player in the Rudd/Gillard pantomime is so bad …. that the next one isn’t worse.


    • #

      “The budget hole if Rudd cuts the carbon tax from $24 to $6 would be about $15 billion.”

      The Gillard/Rudd strategy seems to be to ramp up the deficit incrementally by spending our savings like a drunken sailor through any fallacious means and then leaving it to the Libs to try and balance the books. Rudd is then able to accuse them of ‘forcing austerity on Australia.’ Labor is placing politics above our country’s best interests. How desperate and transparent they have become.


      • #

        One of Lennin’s plans was for other Socialists to debauch the currencies of non communist countries they happened to be in government.


  • #
    Peter Miller

    Well, one place is closing down its power stations and that’s the UK.

    The government in the UK is even more goofy about energy than Australia’s Labour Party.

    The official UK energy regulator Ofgem yesterday commented that blackouts are almost inevitable from 2015 onwards. Industry is going to have to reduce consumption during cold winter days.

    So, in the unlikely events of: i) Global Warming is real, and ii) No power station requires emergency maintenance during winter, the UK will be the first major country to have embrace de-industrialisation by deliberately implementing a policy of expensive and unreliable electricity supply.

    Now watch inward investment in industry into the UK dry up and existing industry exit to more sensible energy environments.

    The solution, of course, is not to close down perfectly good coal fired power stations. Any chance of that happening with the current bunch of clowns ‘running’ the country? Answer: No, niet, not in a million years – after all, green credentials are much more important than economic reality.

    The reason why political leaders in so many countries are out of touch with economic reality and buy into this green nonsense is that they have never had to work in the real world – the term ‘real world’ does not include: i) political research, ii) advertising, iii) public relations, iv) NGOs and v) providing legal advice to trade unions.


    • #

      To me, a major problem is that politicians don’t think critically, and question what they’re told.
      Is there any better proof of this than Al Gore’s book?
      Because someone calls themselves a ‘scientist’ is no guide as to their ability to conduct research.
      People should not be intimidated by ‘scientists’, or believe everything they say.
      Many years ago, when I was doing research for my Ph.D., an elderly friend of the family asked what I was actually doing. He had no science background, having had a military career followed by senior managerial posts. Out came paper and pencil, and within five minutes it was clear that he’d understood the principles because he was asking other questions which were very relevant.
      People also place too much trust in peer review.
      I chanced upon a paper in ‘Nature’ some years ago in which finger length was being measured. This was done by placing the individual’s hand on a photocopier and measuring from the image. Given the varying amounts of soft tissue in the human hand, it is astonishing that this method was used and the results accepted for publication.
      What they should have done was talk to an anatomist, who would almost certainly have recommended using X ray images to measure bone length. Corrections for image distortion using such a technique are well established, and formed part of my undergraduate course syllabus.
      Is there any hope that the West’s politicians will start using their critical faculties with regard to the CO2 and ‘climate change’?


    • #
      J Martin

      “Now watch inward investment in industry into the UK dry up and existing industry exit to more sensible energy environments.”

      Extremely good point.


  • #

    This sounds like a left wing politician trying to appease some merchant bankers with very little understanding of how sophisticated they are.

    You’re swimming with sharks, dear leader, dear leader….


  • #

    Julia Gillard was so bad she made Kevin Rudd look good to the fools in the Labor Caucus.


  • #

    as jo has put it well – as always – china (and other countries) will be using far more coal every year no matter what pretense is made about reducing emissions.

    ROM –

    calculating emissions is so obviously impossible, it’s a wonder the CAGW architects have pursued this scam so long.

    meanwhile, for what it’s worth, today (Rudd’s carbon backflip day), marks the first time in years that Google’s Australian news page hasn’t had a Fairfax or ABC scary climate story.

    unsurprisingly, tho, what Gerald Celente calls the toilet paper of record – The New York Times – finds space to cover the latest election campaign farce:

    29 June: NYT: Matt Siegel: Australian Leader Warns Opposition May Provoke Military Clash


  • #

    couldn’t resist checking out the NYT reporter, Matt Siegel:

    LinkedIn: Matt Siegel
    Current Australia Correspondent at The New York Times
    Staff Writer at monocle
    Past Contributing Writer at monocle
    Associate Producer at Network Ten…etc
    Matt Siegel’s Summary
    I am a highly experienced foreign correspondent, now covering Australia and her neighbors for The New York Times. My work also appears frequently both in print and online for leading magazines, including The Atlantic Monthly, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, The New York Times Magazine and The Economist.
    In the last two years I have also worked extensively as a producer on documentaries for television, with an emphasis on underreported issues such as people smuggling and climate change.
    I speak fluent Russian, having lived and reported from the former Soviet Union for more than five years and am available for all freelance assignments at any time. Have passport, will travel…
    I worked as an Associate Producer on the second season of the award-winning SBS documentary series “Go Back to Where You Came From”…

    surely it’s not the monocle that is providing rubbishy half-hours to ABC radio national!


  • #
    Peter Styles

    Kevin was convinced of global warming, because he saw thousands of scientists in white coats running around and saying that the computer models showed the world was cooking. Keep up the good work as their is no evidence for your stupidity.


  • #

    Reverting to Kevin only highlights the desperation of the ALP’s position.
    The lack of certainty will no doubt fool some of the voters, for a while.


  • #

    What’s up with this? why do we need to point out that renewables are bullshit? where are the scientists? Where are the energy specialists refuting this dream of renewables? I am sooo sick of this charade played out by supposedly reputable scientists.


  • #

    Surely there are scientists in the business of energy supply who could speak out on this, yet we are left with academics from the social sciences telling us about renewable energies? !!


    • #

      yes there are… I wonder why they are not speaking out…


      • #

        Maybe because their departments with “Climate Change” in their titles no longer hold’s water.


      • #

        You are so naive. If you speak freely on matters of energy, on matters of climate, or anything against the Green dogma of people such as yourself, then you must defeat a generation of brainwashing, erode a wall of denial, cope with derision and abuse from people dumber than mud, rely on the independent thinking skills of people who can’t think for themselves, and lose your job and any future prospects into the bargain.

        Much easier to just lies and deceit roll by and say “not my problem.” You wouldn’t have the courage to do it, so why should anyone else?


        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I know a number of people who provide advice to businesses executives and senior politicians. Collectively, they give the best advice they can, and take steps to recognise, allow for, and remove, any personal opinions and biases they might have.

          If, and when, the client asks about climate change (as less and less of them are doing), the standard response is to say, “we have taken that fully into account in our analysis”.

          Thus the myth persists for those to whom the myth is important, but is neatly sidestepped by the thinking people who are expected to have most of the answers.


      • #

        Hey Matt, perhaps you can ask Bob Carter… he might have an idea.


  • #

    Australia might become to China like Tasmania is to its’ big brother to the north-the Australian mainland- full of useless green regulations and anti-development ideologies, relatively poor, with high unemployment and reliant on government handouts from its’ big brother to the north, who don’t have the luxury of sitting around absorbing taxpayers money from other more productive states. But I don’t think China will give payouts to Australia, the way the rest of Australia does to Tasmania.


  • #
  • #
    • #

      Or to put it another way – atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase at a concentration of about one or two molecules in a million of all atmospheric gases annually (dry sample measurement).
      The shock horror tonnages are always brought into perspective by looking at the concentrations instead.
      I have always wondered why none of the so-called climate experts have never demonstrated in a laboratory the effect of so little CO2 change in a gaseous mixture. In other words, I’m talking about real science, real gases, real measurements.
      All we have are calculations and projections – the so-called models. I’d say that’s speculation, not science.
      I worked in vaccine research for a while, and no company is ever going to market a new product unless it’s been proven to be effective. Speculate all you like about molecular structures, cell receptors and the like, but finally reality bites – does it work?
      There’s another part of research – the ‘escape avenue’ as I call it. If something doesn’t work, don’t flog it to death. Try something new or another approach. To me, that’s the trouble with at some of the climatology people. The ‘models’ and real-world measurements aren’t agreeing. Maybe it’s time to give up on CO2 and look at other mechanisms, because clearly whatever is being claimed, the regulation of the world’s climate isn’t understood fully. Yet I’ve seen a research paper claiming that CO2 is the ‘control knob’ (the actual words used) that regulates the world’s climate – and the work was all done on ‘models’. I’ve even seen tinkering with figures on these ‘models’ referred to as ‘experiments’.
      The world of climatology needs to get back to real science as far as I’m concerned.


  • #
    Andrew McRae

    But but…climate change creates Green jobs! KRudd’s taxing carbon polluters because it’s an essential part of tackling global warming, and is one of many ways climate change is creating jobs. 😉

    It creates carbon trading jobs, carbon sink inspection jobs, climate modelling jobs, carbon modelling jobs, fashion modelling jobs, tropical disease epidemiologists, professional coral whisperers, and specialists to deal with over 882 other global warming impacts.

    It all makes sense, just ask our special friends at the IMF

    Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said Thursday that climate change will drive job creation.
    “Climate change will create jobs. It will create disasters before it creates jobs, but it will create jobs,” Lagarde said on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe.”

    (insert scratchy sound effect of vinyl record being rapidly slowed to a standstill)

    Christine, mon amis, permit me to summarise.

    Conventional “broken window economics”: Unnecessary destruction such as breaking a shopfront window creates a demand for repairs that stimulates production through the economy. The flaws in this plan are that the demand is short lived, and repairs divert capital and resources away from activities that would have added value or been genuinely useful.

    Lagarde’s Virtually Broken Window Economics: If we pretend the window is going to break soon we can create a virtual demand for reparations that gives us all the same stimulating effects as if the window had already been really broken. The flaw in this plan is STILL that it diverts investment from GENUINELY valuable activities!

    The web had barely been invented when I learned the Broken Window Fallacy back in high school. I know almost NOTHING about economics and yet I can see through this scam. These days there are blogs devoted to the fallacy and I’m certainly not the first to notice that it applies to carbon dioxide pricing.

    Where does Lagarde get off on perpetuating the Green jobs nonsense to the world’s press? And why does no journo question it?! (Oh that’s right, because they still accept ” The Science™ “ – generated by actors in labcoats who find the prospect of collecting real world data to be “scary“.)



    • #
      Andrew McRae

      And that last comment is certainly in moderation because it contains too much SHOUTING.
      I don’t shout very often.


      • #

        SHOUT IT from the rooftops for all I care. From a whisper to a scream, the truth is still the truth, and Christine Lagarde “gets off” on inflicting as much suffering in the third world as the poor white trash in the IMF can get away with. The veneer of caring, largesse and respectability, pretending to alleviate poverty while actively propagating it, is what makes it so appalling.


  • #
    PeterB in Indianapolis

    Just what the hell is a “carbon price” anyway? For that matter, what is “carbon pollution:???

    Pure carbon comes in the following forms:

    Anthracite (about 92-98% pure carbon)
    Graphite (100% carbon)
    Diamond (100% carbon)
    Fullerene (100% carbon)
    Nanotubes (100% carbon)

    None of the above are, in and of themselves, “pollution” of any sort whatsoever, and in fact, all are quite valuable and useful.

    Now, if, by “carbon pollution”, the idiots actually mean “carbon dioxide pollution”, then they are still idiots anyway. Carbon dioxide is a clear, colorless, odorless gas which is absolutely, positively necessary for ALL life on the planet, and does not become immediately dangerous to life and health until it reaches an atmospheric concentration of 40,000 PPM, which is 100 times higher than the current atmospheric concentration.

    Any other questions?


    • #
      PeterB in Indianapolis

      Oh, and by the way, if the atmospheric concentration of CO2 were to fall below 200 PPM, the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere would be insufficient for photosynthesis to take place.

      As you can tell, that would be FAR more dangerous to life and health than the current concentration of 400 PPM, which is still lower than most plants like for ideal photosynthetic rate.


    • #
      llew Jones

      The assumption no doubt is that the average voter when thinking of the word carbon has in mind revolting, dirty black, sooty stuff. The nature of CO2 is likely to be just beyond the comprehension of the same target audience. Of course to cover all bases other classes of voters may know that CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas. So the propaganda expression,Carbon Pollution, is used to create uninformed revulsion.

      (Incidentally carbon particle emissions would probably lead to a cooling rather than a warming effect but of course the general voting public is pretty dumb. Aussie example, the adulation of Rudd by that same dumb class of voter).


      • #
        llew Jones

        Thought wiki might give us an insight into the reasons for Rudd’s sheer incompetence as a political leader. For example his claim that Abbott as PM would lead Australia to war with Indonesia.

        I mean what are his relevant areas of education and work life experience:

        “Rudd is of English and Irish descent.[14] His paternal fourth great-grandparents were English and of convict heritage: Thomas Rudd and Mary Cable. Thomas arrived from London, England in 1801; Mary arrived from Essex in 1804. Thomas Rudd, who was convicted of stealing a bag of sugar( no doubt to experiment with the production of ethanol to replace petroleum fuels – ask Kevin), arrived in NSW on board the Earl Cornwallis in 1801.[15]

        Rudd studied at the Australian National University in Canberra, where he resided at Burgmann College and graduated with Bachelor of Arts (Asian Studies) with First-Class Honours. He majored in Chinese language and Chinese history, became proficient in Mandarin, and acquired a Chinese name, Lù Kèwén (simplified Chinese: 陆克文; traditional Chinese: 陸克文).[16]

        Rudd’s thesis on Chinese democracy activist Wei Jingsheng[17] was supervised by Pierre Ryckmans, the eminent Belgian-Australian sinologist.[18] During his studies, Rudd did housecleaning for political commentator Laurie Oakes to earn extra money.[19] In 1980 he continued his Chinese studies at the Mandarin Training Center of National Taiwan Normal University in Taipei, Taiwan.

        Rudd joined the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1981, serving there until 1988. He and his wife spent most of the 1980s overseas at various Australian embassies, including in Stockholm and in Beijing. (Which of course gives credence to his claim that Abbott as PM would lead to war with Indonesia. How diplomatic)…


        • #

          Thomas Rudd, convicted of stealing a bag of sugar. Kevin Rudd giving Labor a “sugar rush” at the polls to attempt to steal the advantage away from the coalition.

          Coincidence? The acorn obviously doesn’t fall far from the tree does it.


        • #

          Kevin Rudd never achieved a rank higher than Counselor. This is middle ranking diplomat.


  • #

    I have lived all over Australia, from north to south.

    I all of those places its possible to get several weeks of slow, drizzling rain, with only a slight breeze.

    Please tell me again how “renewables” can supply base load power?

    If they are truly serious about “renewables”, rather than dreaming, then we had better get cracking quick smart with some serious hydro schemes.

    Of course, if they are so needlessly worried about CO2, then the smartest course naturally is nuclear.


  • #
    J Martin

    I’m not an Australian, although I almost was, but still could be, so I don’t know much about Aussie politics, but I get the impression that Rudd is not thought of as being able to learn new tricks. So he won’t be getting re-elected. The question is, will the next party to govern, float the carbon tax or repeal it ?


    • #

      will the next party to govern, float the carbon tax or repeal it?

      The Coalition, the party that will win the next election, has pledged to repeal the carbon tax.


  • #

    Rudd shows that Keating was wrong – a souffle can rise twice 🙂


    • #

      … a souffle can rise twice …

      Thanks to the MSM.
      Rudd, the vacuous ‘posturing prattler’ (thanks Keith Windschuttle) is a media concoction.
      There is symbiosis between Rudd and the media — Rudd loves the media and the MSM loves Rudd and that includes supposedly conservative commentators.
      Constant chaos is a better prospect for the troubled industry than “relaxed and comfortable”.


  • #

    29 June: Bloomberg: Ewa Krukowska/Tony CzuczkaMerkel Says She Blocked Car Carbon Curbs to Shield Auto Jobs
    German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she blocked a draft European Union law aimed at reducing carbon-dioxide emissions from cars over concerns the measure would cost jobs in the auto industry…
    Merkel said that she moved to delay the proposal — which would cap average carbon discharges by passenger vehicles in the bloc at 95 grams a kilometer in 2020 — to defend jobs…
    “At a time when we’re spending days sitting here talking about employment, we have to take care that, notwithstanding the need to make progress on environmental protection, we don’t weaken our own industrial base,” Merkel said…
    Ford Motor Co. (F), which has developed clean-running engines like the 1.0-liter EcoBoost Motor, said it was “disappointed” that a minority of member states was able “to delay a well-balanced agreement,” the company said in a e-mailed statement. “We will now have to re-group within the industry to determine the next steps.”…
    Greenpeace said in an e-mail that any further weakening of the proposal would be “pure greed” and the cost would be borne by European drivers.


  • #

    it’s always fascinated me that sceptics ignore the nuclear aspects of CAGW:

    28 June: Bloomberg: Jim Poison/Mark Chediak: Exelon Gets Obama Boost After Years of Climate Lobbying
    Exelon Corp. (EXC), the largest U.S. nuclear power producer, may begin to see its low-emissions strategy pay off — four years after it lost a fight for climate legislation it told investors would add $1.1 billion in annual earnings…
    The company’s shareholders have paid the price during the wait for U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions limits…
    The tide may now be turning for the utility owner after President Barack Obama announced plans this week to limit heat-trapping carbon dioxide emitted from power plants, giving a boost for Exelon and its nuclear reactors…
    Other winners may include NextEra Energy Inc. (NEE), the biggest operator of U.S. wind power, and First Solar Inc. (FSLR), builder of utility-scale solar projects. Coal producers like Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) have attacked the plan for its potential harm to jobs and the economy.
    “The worse things are for coal, the better they are for nuclear,” Kit Konolige, a New York-based analyst for BGC Partners LP who rates Exelon a hold and doesn’t own the shares, said today in a phone interview. “These guys are the nuclear play.” …
    The company, which announced its first dividend cut in February, has 17 nuclear reactors and 44 wind-power projects and much to gain from carbon dioxide, or CO2, regulations. Limits probably will drive up the price of electricity by making coal-fired plants more expensive or even too costly to run, said Andrew Smith, a Houston-based analyst for Drexel Hamilton LLC…
    Exelon emits a quarter of the greenhouse gases of its next-cleanest competitor to generate the same amount of power, so it has an advantage if government policies crimp the output of competitors, Hugh Wynne, a New York-based analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. wrote in note to clients yesterday…
    Exelon’s former Chief Executive Officer John Rowe was a vocal proponent of climate legislation, often flying to Washington to lobby elected officials. During his tenure, Exelon left the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of a disagreement with business group’s global warming policies. They have since rejoined the Washington-based lobbying group…

    August 2012: NYT: Eric Lipton: Ties to Obama Aided in Access for Big Utility
    Early in the Obama administration, a lobbyist for the Illinois-based energy producer Exelon Corporation proudly called it “the president’s utility.” And it was not just because it delivers power to Barack Obama’s Hyde Park neighborhood in Chicago.
    Exelon’s top executives were early and frequent supporters of Mr. Obama as he rose from the Illinois State Senate to the White House. John W. Rogers Jr., a friend of the president’s and one of his top fund-raisers, is an Exelon board member. David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s longtime political strategist, once worked as an Exelon consultant, and Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago mayor and Mr. Obama’s former chief of staff, helped create the company through a corporate merger in 2000 while working as an investment banker…
    White House records show that Exelon executives were able to secure an unusually large number of meetings with top administration officials at key moments in the consideration of environmental regulations that have been drafted in a way that hurt Exelon’s competitors, but curb the high cost of compliance for Exelon and its industry allies.
    In addition, Exelon, which provides power to more than 6.6 million customers in at least 16 states and the District of Columbia, was chosen as one of only six electric utilities nationwide for the maximum $200 million stimulus grant from the Energy Department. And when the Treasury Department granted loans for renewable energy projects, Exelon landed a commitment for up to $646 million allowing it, on extremely generous financial terms, to finance one of the world’s largest photovoltaic solar projects…
    The administration’s tightening of clean air rules was a particular boon, since it took aim at Exelon’s main competitors — coal-burning power plants in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic regions. In 2010, Exelon estimated it would earn an extra $400 million annually because the regulations would force dozens of coal-burning plants to close.
    ***“We were the hyena looking for the dead stuff on the road,” John W. Rowe, Exelon’s recently departed chief executive, told Wall Street analysts this year. …
    Exelon’s employees have contributed at least $395,000 to Mr. Obama’s federal campaigns. By far the strongest link is with Mr. Rogers, the Exelon board member and family friend. A college classmate of Michelle Obama’s brother, he was co-chairman of Mr. Obama’s inauguration committee and still occasionally plays basketball with Mr. Obama.
    He is one of Mr. Obama’s biggest campaign donation bundlers, having raised more than $500,000, and has co-hosted several fund-raisers, including one in March that featured a performance by the Grammy-winning musician John Legend…
    Another Obama bundler is William A. Von Hoene Jr., who oversees Exelon’s legal and lobbying team out of Chicago, despite Mr. Obama’s rule against accepting contributions from lobbyists…
    When Exelon’s PECO subsidiary emerged from hundreds of applicants as one of six companies to win the maximum $200 million stimulus grant, Energy Secretary Steven Chu went to Philadelphia to announce the award. Exelon is using the money to install new “smart meters” for its Philadelphia-area customers, cutting the price tag for a project it was already planning…
    “I would find it surprising if a company as well placed as Exelon did not do well in Washington,” said Kenneth P. Green, an environmental scientist and energy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research group. “They are the go-to people for the administration’s efforts.”


  • #
    D Cotton

    Any “carbon scheme” will do nothing more than reduce a gas which actually has a minuscule net cooling effect because it reduces the atmospheric temperature gradient by inter-molecular radiation, just like water vapour does.

    What have blackbody calculations got to do with determining Earth’s surface temperature? The surface loses two-thirds of its thermal energy to the atmosphere by non-radiative processes. Physics tells us that rate of cooling by non-radiative processes depends upon the temperature gap at the surface-atmosphere boundary.

    But that energy transferred by conduction and evaporative cooling uses up two-thirds of the energy available for radiation. What’s more, if radiation transfer is slowed by back radiation, then non-radiative transfer is free to accelerate. How on Earth (or any planet like Venus for example) can you imagine that you can calculate what a surface temperature “ought” to be using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations that only apply for a blackbody in space?

    The Earth’s surface is nothing remotely like a black body, and it also transfers heat further underground in the morning, and then gets it back from there at night, so it’s even more complicated.

    The whole paradigm of radiative forcing of planetary surface temperatures is invalid. The surface temperature is “supported” by the temperature at the base of the atmosphere, and the latter is held in place by the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient, which evolves spontaneously as a result of the process described in modern statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The gravity gradient (modified by inter-molecular radiation) can be used to calculate all observed or estimated atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures in our Solar System.


    • #

      Unfortunately, Doug, even most AGW sceptics refuse to listen to this.

      Eventually, they may realise this to be the case… maybe !!


  • #

    what is it with the University of Adelaide?

    10 June: Adelaide Advertiser: There is a good case for Australia to become the world’s nuclear waste depository
    GIVEN this state’s recent economic travails, nuclear waste disposal offers South Australia an ethical growth industry that would mesh well with its growing mining industry, writes John Gava
    Associate Professor John Gava is a reader at the (University of) Adelaide Law School.
    The world is awash with nuclear waste. Yet no country seems willing to store its own waste properly, let alone that coming from anywhere else.
    Unless something is done, my fear is that, sooner or later, some poor African country will be bribed into taking the world’s nuclear waste for a pittance, with the waste being stored in second-rate facilities where a disaster is only just around the corner.
    Or, even worse, that organised crime will get involved, probably affecting the same poor African country…
    Some countries are just too poor or corrupt to safely store nuclear waste of any kind…
    There is an argument to be had over whether, even on the most catastrophic of assumptions, the costs associated with a massively increased nuclear power industry would be less than the frightening scenario painted by climate scientists of what will happen if the Earth heats up two, three or more degrees.
    ***As horrible as it might sound, we might be better off with a Fukushima meltdown every decade or so if nuclear power generation helped us to avoid the far greater disasters associated with global warming.
    These are issues that are best left to experts in the appropriate fields…
    And our locally developed Synroc ( offers a tool to deal with this stuff…
    There may be technical reasons Australia is not a suitable place to site a waste depository for the world’s nuclear waste.
    But absent of some serious and fundamental reason why we can’t store that waste, it is our moral duty to do so. And if we make some money doing so, that’s all to the good.

    11 April: The Conversation: Serious about emissions? It’s time to embrace nuclear
    by Barry W. Brook, Professor of Climate Science, ARC Future Fellow at University of Adelaide
    and Tom Wigley, Professor, Climatology at University of Adelaide
    Disclosure Statement:
    Barry W. Brook receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the International Awards Committee of the Global Energy Prize.
    ***Tom Wigley does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
    University of Adelaide does not contribute to the cost of running The Conversation.
    What happened instead? A denial machine that cut its teeth working for the tobacco industry moved on to climate change. Climate change denial took off as the vested interests did what they do best. In this they found a most unexpected ally: environmentalism and the emergent paradigm of sustainability.
    With the roots of the movementbeing more strongly defined as anti-nuclear than anti-fossil fuels, environmentalism effectively pulled uranium from the table. Were it not for their opposition, uranium might have powered the boom of the developing world in the 90s and 00s while also gradually re-powering the developed world towards zero-carbon energy generation…
    Now, in 2013, we find ourselves at a new crossroad. The failure is there for all to see in our soaring emissions and warming world. Another 2.5 billion people are in the pipeline: they deserve energy…
    Coal has barely budged in total global electricity share of around 40% (double that for Australia), while demand grew three and a half times between 1973 and 2010…
    First, we need balanced government-led climate strategies with scientific integrity to focus on actual, measurable, and rapid reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, with a target of zero.
    Second, we need rapid deployment of high-volume, zero-carbon technology for direct substitution with fossil fuels. That means picking some winners. Our winners of choice are small modular reactors progressing to the integral fast reactor…
    Finally, to achieve all this we need a popular movement to embrace nuclear power. The consequent pressure will hopefully force government and industry to respond…
    This article was co-authored by Ben Heard, Director of Think Climate Consulting. Ben blogs as DecarboniseSA and Tweets as @Ben_ThinkClimate.

    Wikipedia: Tom Wigley
    Tom Wigley is a climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). He was named a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) for his major contributions to climate and carbon cycle modeling and to climate data analysis, and because he is “one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change and one of the most highly cited scientists in the discipline.” Wigley has argued in the popular media that the IPCC has been too optimistic about the prospect of averting harmful climate change by reducing greenhouse emissions, and that “the human-induced changes that are expected over the next 100 years are much, much greater than any changes that societies experienced in the past…
    Tom Wigley was educated as a mathematical physicist and earned his doctorate at the ***University of Adelaide in Australia. He served as director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom from 1978 to 1993. In 1993 he went on to the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, where he was appointed a senior scientist in 1994.


    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Totally agree with UniSA that Australia is an ideal place for a long term nuclear waste repository. That’s not even going far enough. Australia has the single most ideal place on Earth for a long-term waste repository. That means we do have a moral obligation to create the ideal repository and have the world’s long term waste sent there.

      Latitude 28 south, longitude 123 east.

      I’ve been saying it for 6 years because Pangea Resources has been saying it for 14 years. See this old Four Corners report.

      Where I disagree with the UniSA boffin is that the ideal place is not in SA, according to Pangea it’s actually just across the border in W.A., but outback SA is close enough, especially considering the proximity of the Darwin-Adelaide railway which didn’t exist in 1999.

      pat, interesting connection is to Nick Minchin, who crumbled to anti-science alarmism a decade before he rebranded himself as the pro-science climate skeptic…

      Senator Nick Minchin, Minister for Industry and Resources:
      And the Government has absolutely no intention of accepting the radioactive waste of other countries.

      Booo! Hissss!


    • #

      Nuclear waste can be safely dumped at sea at very little cost. The waste simply needs to be converted to a chemically inert form, placed in corrosion resistant containers and dumped in deep water off the continental shelf. There is no danger of the material ever being recovered by terrorists or causing a serious problem. The only barriers are to doing so are legal conventions. [The oceans already contain >4 billion tonnes of uranium.]

      There are eight nuclear submarines lying on the ocean floor. None have caused a serious environmental problem.


  • #

    For anybody who wants to know just how useless and worse, how utterly destabilising the wind power scammers are to our entire energy supply system then this is the official AEMO site for the daily and longer period wind power generation data.

    Wind Farm Performance

    Data is selectable such as for South Australia on the 28th June [ ie yesterday ]
    SA has the largest wind power system in Australia with a “plated capacity” , the maximum theoretical output, as can be seen from the selectable tables, of 1223 MWs.
    The plated wind turbine generation capacity of 2680 MW is for all of eastern Australia so SA accounts for about 46% of Australia’s theoretical total of “plated” wind power generation.
    The capital cost of wind power varies considerably but a a figure of around $2 million a MW of plated generating capacity can be assumed

    SA as can be seen from the graphs has a steady day time, daily work period power demand of about 24,000 to 27,000 MW’s

    From 1800 hours [ 6 pm ] on Thursday 27th to 1500 hrs [ 3 pm ] on the 28th, SA’s combined wind turbine generated power was so a small amount that it is almost immeasurable on the AEMO graphs at below 15MW’s and sometimes below a combined total of 10 MWS for SA’s entire wind farm system over that entire 21 hour period.

    As a percentage of the total plated power generation capacity of SA’s wind farms that amounts to about 1% of the claimed wind turbine theoretical output.
    And it wasn’t all that much better in the hours either side of this 21 hour period.

    At about a capital cost of about $2 million a MW of plated wind turbine generating capacity, the total cost. a large part of it straight from the consumers pockets, comes to a total capital cost of about $2.5 billion for SA’s wind farms alone.
    For this the SA’s got 10 MW to 15MW of power for nearly all of one day

    Thats about the same amount of power as four of these would put out

    To cover this SA demand the South Aussies had to pay up to $2000 / MW at 1900 hours on the 28th, a cost that goes directly to the SA consumers.

    Current Dispatch Interval Price and Demand Graph: SA

    SA’s only high capacity backup source for their power in this situation is the two HV lines running through Heywood in SW Victoria into SA which supplies power from Victoria’s brown coal fired Hazelwood power generators and from the under Bass Strait line which brings Tasmanian Hydro power into SE Australia.


    The world’s future in energy generation lies quite probably in the success of the incredible claims from the aerospace’s Lockheed Martin’s Skunkworks , the builders of the U2’s and the SR71 Blackbird and the R22 Raptor aircraft.

    The Skunk Works Charles Chase at a very recent Google solve for X forum released an outline on the Skunk Works development of a small FUSION reactor which they claim will possibly be in production by the mid 2020’s.
    If they achieve this incredible advance then the world’s energy supplies are probably assured for eternity.

    And if Rossi’s cold fusion reactor is eventually proven to be a real, actual operating device and not a gigantic scam then that also will be another immense addition to the global energy system.

    Mankind needs four basic items to survive.
    He needs;
    Shelter [ clothing/ personal covering also counts as shelter ]

    The control of energy , even a cow pat fire , possibly the lowest form of controlled energy mankind has, is what differentiates mankind from animals.
    The control of energy alone is the entire basis on which all of mankind’s advances and civilisations have been constructed. Without the ability to control energy ie Fire, we are no more than another sentient species on this planet.


    • #

      OOPS! Correction to the above post;

      I did not select SA as intended but included all the eastern Australian energy demand.
      It should read from the selected SA demand figures on the AEMO site;

      SA as can be seen from the graphs has a steady day time, daily work period power demand of about 24,000 to 27,000 1500 to 2000 MW’s


    • #


      there’s a minor little thing you should be aware of here.

      You’ve linked into that Wind Performance series of graphs there using the link that takes you directly to the site. What it then shows is the data for the most recent set of figures they have, which is always the data for the day immediately prior to the current date when you are reading this comment.

      So, if people take your link at any time later than today (29Jun2013) they will not see the data you have linked to specifically here, and they will always get the data for the day immediately prior to when they take the link, so, if they take that link tomorrow, then they will get the data for today, if you can see that point.

      If you wish readers to go to a specific date, and that date is the one you have signified here, for yesterday (28Jun2013) then you need to change the date on the site address line.

      At the link, see the site address line there. It says …..

      To always be sure readers get to the day you intended you need to change that address line.

      Now, at the top right of the chart you’ll see a blue tab titled change date. Click on that and change the date to the day immediately prior to the day you are looking at, and it shows the calendar there for you to do that.

      See how the site address line changes to …..

      Now, to always get the date you have referred to, then change the date, the last mentioned number there, to 28

      That’s the link you need to copy to your link here at this site.

      Amended link for the day ROM has linked to is as follows.

      Wind performance 28Jun2013

      That site is a great resource, mainly for the third graph, and when you take that link, just scroll down to the third chart off the bottom of the screen there. That black line is the Load Curve for everywhere East of the WA border.

      Note how this shows the distinct two peak typical Winter Load Curve.

      You can compare this with any date you wish, just by changing the date on the site address line and the records there show every day for almost 5 years now.

      Compare the 2 peak Winter curve with any Summer month one mid day peak typical Summer Load Curve.

      Note the dip at around 4AM every morning, all year round and how it has always been at that mark of 18000MW. Everything below that (18000MW) is required ABSOLUTELY, for 24 hours of EVERY day.

      Also, now scroll right to the bottom of the page and click on either of the two graphs on the right side, and it will open in a larger format.

      Total consumption is the red line at the top, and wind shows their total in blue, rolling along the bottom. THAT shows you how utterly useless wind power really is.



      • #

        You are quite right Tony. . I overlooked to mention this and just took it for granted that others would figure the date system out for themselves.


    • #
      u know who

      HMMMM, that posting style sounds so familiar? now where have i heard exactly all of that all before?
      Seem your posting style has not changed at all ROM


  • #

    Former union executive, Minister for Climate Change Greg Combet has announced that he will not stand again at the next federal election. He joins a mass exodus of cabinet ministers since KRudd replaced Gillard. Showman and actor KRudd has already made a huge mistake by claiming that if the Coalition in government were to turn people smuggler boats back to Indonesia there would be a confrontation between our countries, the Indonesian government has denied this and claimed that KRudd was all about domestic politics. Even so, claimed to be diplomat KRudd speaking as our Prime Minister made a fool of himself.


  • #

    there’s a video included with someone whose name i didn’t notice letting us know Colin Barnett said yesterday he’s happy to have Rudd back instead of Gillard. given it’s only weeks til an election, why even bother to say this?

    29 June: Australian: Andrew Burrell: Coal facing a ‘structural decline’
    But the West Australian Premier told The Australian & Deutsche Bank Business Leaders Forum in Perth yesterday that he did not believe his state was facing a recession as some had predicted…
    But (West Australian Premier) Mr Barnett’s gloomy outlook for commodities contrasted sharply with his upbeat assessment at the same Perth event a year ago when both coal and iron ore were trading well above present levels.
    He saved his most dire warning for coal, which is produced mainly in NSW and Queensland rather than WA.
    “The change in the coal price is beyond cyclical: it is a structural change,” he said. “And while coal remains the world’s most used fuel for power generation and other purposes, the world is making policy decisions which mean that coal usage, in my view, will progressively decline. It’s a long-term structural change and that should not be dismissed as something that is purely cyclical.”

    are u sure this guy is a Liberal?

    27 June: News Ltd: Joe Spagnolo: WA Premier Colin Barnett had ‘better relationship’ with Kevin Rudd than Julia Gillard
    PREMIER Colin Barnett appears happy to have his former ally Kevin Rudd back as Prime Minister…


  • #

    The alp (Australian LIARS PARTY) reached into its rubbish bin and fished a piece of discarded garbage called “kevin rudd”……





  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Who can forget Rudd dropping the F-Bomb in this one: