Tony from Oz, Anton Lang, the real power watch, Gert Jaap and the Norwegian RE miracle

Forget about my sawn-off windwatches, this is the real thing from Anton Long, aka Tony from Oz who has been following these things in detail for years.

A few other things, a great column from Don Aitkin that I missed when it first appeared, a really handy summary of the way he has seen the climate debate from the very early days. He had a career as a data nerd and he insisted on getting to grips with the best scientific information available. There is a really interesting comment a short way down the thread indicating how more warming can be good for ecosystems.

Here is a beautifully illustrated series of blog posts by Gert Jaap a jolly Dutch commentator. Who says the Dutch have no sense of humour – the Germans I suppose, or is it just the machine translation from the original?) Essentially he demonstrates with great clarity and wit the inane mistakes that the Europeans have made by injecting unreliable energy into the grid in advance of storage facilites. DUTCH-PAPER

And a fascinating piece of information from Norway that must be the world leader in RE with 98% of their power from hydro. Furnaces that burn stuff have a capacity of 1.1GW. It was probably Mr Jaap who pointed out they they did this while they stopped making things, rather like South Australia, but they balance the books with exports of oil, gas and fish fillets. Crude Petroleum $22.8 billion: Petroleum Gas $20.7 billion: Non-Fillet Fresh Fish $6.4 billion : Raw Aluminum $2.42 billion: Fish Fillets $1.71 billion.

Perhaps we could do that if only the greens would let us get at the gas and the fish.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Tony from Oz, Anton Lang, the real power watch, Gert Jaap and the Norwegian RE miracle

  1. Bruce of Newcastle

    There is a really interesting comment a short way down the thread indicating how more warming can be good for ecosystems.

    The Holocene Climatic Optimum hasn’t been renamed by the climateers yet.

    In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably warmer than now

    Yep, by about a degree – which the climateers think would consign us to Gaia’s Hell if we returned to such conditions. I wonder why it was called “Optimum”?

  2. DaveR

    Great comment about Norway v South Australia

    Norway stopped making things, then moved to renewables (hydro).

    South Australia moved to renewables (wind, solar), then stopped making things.

  3. John Constantine

    Our green ABC lecture us from their billion dollar bully pulpit that Australia is such a wealthy country that we can afford to progress to a decolonialised services economy by mass importing millions of the world’s poorest people as services consumption machines.

    Infrastructure through one belt one road chicom tyrant loanshark debt.

    Comrades.

  4. David Brewer

    Some interesting, paradoxical, largely unrecognised points in the DUTCH PAPER, including:

    The market price for electricity (the proceeds for the producers) fell from approximately €8 cents per kwh to €3 cents per kwh. The producers of wind power are getting that – to some extent – compensated by means of subsidies. The producers of ‘ fossil ‘ current are to carry that reduction of the yield themselves. The ‘ fossil ‘ power plants are thus confronted with lower yields (decreasing market price) and declining share (less kWh). That is why the fossil producers have had to make huge sums of money and have now omitted major maintenance from these plants. There is no payback model. 

     

    This is an example of the low quality product driving out the high quality product. Wind power is cheap – yes, but it is supremely unreliable, and its cheapness destroys the economics of reliable alternatives.

    the cost of ‘ wind at sea ‘ is accounting cosmetically reduced. Roughly one-third of the ‘ wind at sea ‘ costs are the so-called power sockets at sea. These are transferred by the company TenneT from the ‘ wind at sea ‘ operator – Read EnBW – directly to the consumer.

    “Power sockets at sea” presumably means the very expensive sea-floor cabling required to bring the power ashore. Watch out for where the cost of this is hiding when claims are made about cheap offshore wind power.

    Other points that emerge:

    – No rent is being paid for the sea and sea-floor space being taken up by offshore wind farms. Costs of navigating around them, and lost fishing, mining and other opportunities, spill over onto the persons carrying out those activities.

    – Even a whole day of battery storage makes hardly any difference to the problem of smoothing out unreliable wind and solar: “only 2.66% of the total power requirement can be pushed forward one day”. Not that surprising really – you can only store power on the minority of days where output exceeds the average, you can only store the surplus over what you use, and you can only use that surplus next day to the extent of the next day’s shortfall if any. Admittedly, the model here involves crude, day-to-day accounting, but it serves to bring out the rather crippling limitations of storage.

    Lots of other goodies. Electrical engineers must know all this stuff. Why do we never hear from them?

  5. mem

    This is an example of the low quality product driving out the high quality product. Wind power is cheap – yes, but it is supremely unreliable, and its cheapness destroys the economics of reliable alternatives.

    This is an example of the low quality product driving out the high quality product SUPPORTED BY TAX PAYER SUBSIDIES.Wind power is cheap – yes, but it is supremely unreliable, and its cheapness destroys the economics of reliable alternatives WIND POWER IS NOT CHEAP AS IT REQUIRES NEW GRID INFRASTRUCTURE, VAST AREAS OF LAND, A BLIND EYE TO THE DEGRADATION OF THE LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGY OF AN AREA , SUBSIDIES, MORE SUBSIDIES, ENORMOUS NUMBERS OF MEN IN YELLOW VESTS DRIVING WHITE FOUR WHEEL DRIVES AND LARGE TRANSPORTERS WRECKING UNMADE BUSH ROADS AND OVER THE TOP COSTS TO CONSUMERS TO KEEP THE WHOLE BOONDOGGLE AFLOAT. My apologies for the caps.

  6. Mark M

    Spot the renewable energy in this photo:

    GE has completed production of the first nacelle for its 12MW Haliade-X offshore wind turbine at Saint-Nazaire in France.

    GE completes first Haliade-X nacelle

    https://renews.biz/54405

    You can’t build one with out fossil fuels.

  7. Tel

    This is an example of the low quality product driving out the high quality product. Wind power is cheap – yes, but it is supremely unreliable, and its cheapness destroys the economics of reliable alternatives.

    The buyers are obliged to purchase … it has nothing to do with price.

  8. egg_

    Our green ABC lecture us from their billion dollar bully pulpit that Australia is such a wealthy country that we can afford to progress to a decolonialised services economy by mass importing millions of the world’s poorest people as services consumption machines.

    Each ghetto tower block to have a 7-Eleven at the base?

  9. Entropy

    Perhaps we could do that if only the greens would let us get at the gas and the fish.

    More likely Barnyard pigs NSW and Victoria would be all in favour of the federal Government legislating to make Little Red Hen Qld give gas that it is currently making money with on the export market, send it south instead to domestic markets, at a lower price natch. That way it will keep the barnyard pigs happy.

  10. RobK

    The Dutch Paper is a good analysis of the gluts and shortages we can expect from increased RE. I formed my views on this by living off-grid for the past 25 years and learning first hand. (I have 4days of storage)The analysis reinforces my view that curtailment will increase as RE increases(due to storage and transmission constraints) . The analysis didn’t point out that from year to year there are in fact variations in RE output, such that guarantees or accurate predictions of production/profit are not possible. It places electricity production in a worse weather dependent category than say, grain production . Grain is easily stored or conserved yet price fluctuates seasonally and over the years. It is really stupid to subject our energy policies to this vague, variable, random and expensive source of power. A major retrograde step.

  11. Dave Brewer

    The buyers are obliged to purchase … it has nothing to do with price.

    The buyers are often obliged to purchase – they are in Australia – but even where they are not obliged, the low price of wind power when the wind is blowing means it will be taken up on the spot market, wrecking the economics of baseload generation. This is well brought out in the Dutch Paper, which shows how the very presence of wind power drives down spot prices.

    WIND POWER IS NOT CHEAP AS IT REQUIRES [lots of costly things]

    All true, I was only talking about the spot price when the wind is blowing. The “system costs” imposed by wind power are enormous – hence the very high prices of electricity to final consumers in countries with high shares of wind (and solar) generating capacity.

    This is an example of the low quality product driving out the high quality product SUPPORTED BY TAX PAYER SUBSIDIES.

    True again, and in fact subsidies are the key to the whole problem. First, governments subsidise wind power, not just directly but through mandates to use wind first, and through failing to charge for necessary infrastructure, “balancing” costs, loss of amenity, environmental damage etc. Next, they find themselves subsidising batteries, or Snowy 2.o, or even coal or other generators to stay in business and keep the lights on despite all the unfair advantages they handed to unreliable wind. Then, what do you know, the price of electricity is still too high, so governments start subsidising consumers – old people, the unemployed, the poor etc., who can no longer afford to keep themselves warm.

    The whole situation is a classic example of Mises’ observation that one intervention inevitably leads to another, and another, until you end up with a crippled market, a broken price system, and massive inefficiencies of resource allocation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.