Do the states have robust plans to pursue net zero?

Have they done their due diligence on the wind supply?

An open letter to relevant state ministers, cc to the others in the hope that they are interested. To be sent like the briefing notes of the “iceberg program” that go to 835 state and federal members from coast to coast.

Dear ……I am writing to collect information for a paper to present to the Clean Energy Council Summit in Sydney on 13-14 July.  The plan for the paper is to report the work that all the states have done to observe due diligence with their plans to pursue net zero emissions.

The critical issue is – are the plans robust in the face of fluctuations in the supply of wind and solar power? Can the supply be guaranteed under the worst case scenarios that are likely to arise when there is not enough conventional power installed to provide 100% of demand?

If we plan to dispense with coal-fired power and depend on RE then due diligence demands an actuarial assessment of the risk of grid failure due to lack of wind, given that no solar power is available for most of the 24-hour day.

For example the flood protection for the city of Launceston is planned to withstand a 1 in 200 years deluge in the catchment area. The plan is mindful of the disastrous 1929 flood.

Can the states demonstrate that the electricity supply will be as secure in the face of protracted wind droughts, as the city of Launceston is secure against heavy rain?

Are you aware of the frequency and duration of wind droughts across the whole of SE Australia and also in your own state?

The plans appear to depend on the amount of installed wind and solar generating capacity but due  diligence required attention to the worst possible situation, in other words, the lowest points of RE generation. Floods penetrate levees at the lowest point, attacking armies scale the castle walls at the lowest point and if there is no petrol in your tank the car will not go, regardless of the size of the tank. No petrol, no power; similarly no wind, no wind power.

Low points in the wind supply can be readily observed in the records of the AEMO. In June 2020 June 2020 the supply of wind dropped below 10% of the “plated”, installed or potential capacity of the windfleet on several occasions. Source


The longest spells were 33 hours, 18 hours, 16 hours and 14  hours. That is unusual but the point of due diligence is to find if the system is robust under the most demanding circumstances that are likely to arise in a given time frame, say 50, 100 or 200 years.

Key questions. Information required to collate for the Clean Energy Council Summit.

1. Have you investigated the anticipated supply of wind with particular attention to extended periods of  critically low supply?

2.  Do  you have an actuarial study to assess the resilience of the anticipated supply to cope with events in a 50, 100 or 200 year frame? In other words, do you anticipate that the system is designed to handle 1 in 50, 1 in 100 or 1 in 200 year low wind events?

3. What are the plans to maintain continuity in the power supply during extended wind droughts?  Details of the capacity in MWh (not just MW) are necessary and also the anticipated cost of the most likely remedies – transmission lines, batteries and pumped hydro.

I expect that this information will be readily available in the research and planning branches of the relevant department and it will be helpful to have your response in hand by the end of June to allow some time to complete the paper for the July Summit. I am confident that there will be lively interest in the findings!

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

This entry was posted in Electric Power and Energy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Do the states have robust plans to pursue net zero?

  1. jo says:

    Rafe you mischievous rascal. 99% of them will have no idea what you are talking about.

    actuarial assessment of the risk

    To them it matters nought for the cost or risk. No responsibility. The B.S. about having to face the electorate at the next election is not responsibility.

  2. flyboy says:

    You will take the failure to reply to the summit

  3. Rafe Champion says:

    Thanks jo a bit mischevious indeed.

  4. Mak Siccar says:

    Well done Rafe – please keep up the good work, for the sake of our country. Expose these cretins for what they really are.

  5. Roger says:

    God’s work, Rafe.

  6. Bronson says:

    Rafe good on you but you’ll get the standard ministerial reply….’thankyou for your interest, refer to our website http://www.nothingatall, don’t call us we’ll call you”

  7. wal1957 says:

    I expect that this information will be readily available in the research and planning branches of the relevant department

    Excellent Rafe. You really should have been a comedian. We all know that they haven’t done due dilligence.
    If they had, we would be reversing course already.
    It will be very interesting as to what replies you get, if any.

  8. Peter Smith says:

    Great work Rafe. Even Sir Humphrey Appleby would be tested in forming a reply.

  9. Fang says:

    You do realise, that all the pollys with their fingers in the public till with RE, will just say that “We need to build enough renewable production to cater for less than 5% RE production!”
    So, prepare to bend over and have our lives and lively hoods extracted from every persons life!!!!! 🙄🙁

  10. Art Vandelay says:

    Nice work, Rafe.

    I’ts 38 degrees here in SA today and there’s no wind. The wind turbines are currently putting out a measly 57Mw (out of 1800MW installed capacity).

  11. min says:

    Because they have nfi, the answers will be that they propose to have batteries and diesel generators . Of course diesel will no be problem we can just Import more and batteries technology will improve . China is still the only processir of lithium Ttgis stage but Biden might put ptocessing plant in Texas according to Lynas.

  12. Tapdog says:

    Waaaay too rational Rafe. You’re playing by THEIR rules. These folks have no intention of mounting or defending a rational argument.

    The objective is to exploit the social and political divisions created by crippling the Australian economy. Back to basics. Regain control of the education system and campaign against them in their electorates.

  13. Professor Fred Lenin says:

    Are these career polliemuppets really that stupid? Or is there some evil global agenda to destroy the West for the profit of soros ,bloomberg ,koch bros etc ? We all know they owned obummer lock stock and barrell ,and they pwn theratfaced paedo and his geriatric gang of theives .

  14. duncanm says:

    Unicorns and rainbows. Unicorns and rainbows

  15. duncanm says:

    Good on you Rafe.

    The funny thing is, it would be straightforward, if somewhat involved, to do such an analysis

  16. Rafe Champion says:

    The thing is to get these insights out of our bubble into the the community at large, or at least to more people who are open to persuasion but have not yet focussed on this issue, given the domination of covid and lockdown in the news cycle and all the other things in busy lives -mortgages, jobs/lack of job, getting the kids to sport, will Parramatta get it together in the halves this year etc

    I appreciate that the combined influence of ideology, political pressure and money can keep the RE ponzi afloat for a long time but the lights will eventually start going out and when the time comes I want to be able to say that every pollie in the nation was warned in advance and as many people as possible were warned as well. That means getting onto talk radio and mass- circulation dailies like the Tele in Sydney.

    The letter-writing program will resume soon when Cardimona’s grass is not taking all his time to keep it under control. We have more briefing notes in the pipeline.

  17. H B Bear says:

    Of course not. It’s just a slogan.

  18. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV) says:

    The states have a robust plan to ensure manufacturing can never return to the west and be forever embedded with the fascist chinese dictatorship

  19. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Net zero what? GDP?
    Seem to be on that track.
    No virus, no electricity, no economic activity, no people.
    Leave Australia to the kangaroos.

  20. duncanm says:

    The irony is that any coal or gas proposal is ROI’d and guaranteed for service up the wazoo.

    Renewballs don’t need to be – as their primary purpose is graft, not consistent and sufficient electricity supply.

  21. Rockdoctor says:

    On ya Rafe. I spent most of today driving the Carnarvon hwy/Developmental rd. Tomorrow I will be on the Gregory Developmental rd that has even more remote sections. The thing is having traversed the centre of our continent I know the roads I am on aren’t that remote compared to others.

    Renewables like electric cars are a pipe deam. We have overegged the pudding and IMO actual viability is maybe generations off.

  22. RobK says:

    Im guessing, if you get a coherent reply it will emphasise the you-beaut hydrogen economy that is just around the corner….because pixies said so. ( and some globalists)
    The experiment continues.
    A risk analysis is in order.

  23. jupes says:

    Renewables like electric cars are a pipe deam. We have overegged the pudding and IMO actual viability is maybe generations off.

    Or never. Regardless, the whole idea is ridiculous. We could generate the cheapest electricity in the world for a couple of centuries using coal and not make any difference at all to the weather.

  24. Mullumhillbilly says:

    Good work Rafe! Brings back distant memories of when journalists used to know how to ask questions.

  25. Forester says:

    True Journalists across the country should simply ask every politician:

    Do you categorically rule out a ban on household backup diesel generators?”

  26. Nob says:

    Electric vehicles have their uses but not for anything heavy as the battery weight would exceed the payload, as JCB found out recently.

    To say nothing of the madness of demanding “more electric everything” while destabilising the grid and tripling and quadrupling the cost of electricity.

  27. RJH says:

    What will be more interesting will be their responses or lack thereof? Perhaps a bit of public shaming/education by you listing by name the responders & responses plus the non-responders. Rafe keep up your great work at exposing these fraudsters and their fantasies

  28. Rafe Champion says:

    Yes RJH, Cardimona is building a website to support the program, in addition to all the briefing notes and supporting materials there will be section for pollie report cards (with grades) to show individual records of non-responses and also responses that indicate lack of interest or disconnection.

    The reports will be based on the replies to letters from our correspondents who will write to their local member. Generally the briefing notes that go to 835 pollies do not demand a reply because members quite legitimately are not obliged to reply to mass mail from one person located in a distant electorate who could be a bot or just a public nuisance. In any case the last thing we want is 835 replies – auto replies are ok, no action required and we do get a trickle of supportive mail from pollies who are on side

    The responses that will be reported are those to a person in their electorate and we aim to have ongoing exchanges between the voter and the member to push them past the initial standard replies to engage with particular questions and ideally to establish some rapport so they can actually talk to each other. Coalition party workers are ideal letter-writers but we don’t have many of them. We need 40 more writers to cover all the cabinet and shadow cabinet members.

  29. WX says:

    Rafe, I wonder if some of the language used might be more robust, when appropriate? Might ‘alternative’ be substituted for ‘renewable’ (when not referring to the name of an organisation, of course)?

    The following words and phrases have potential, I believe: fragile, unstable, unpredictable, industry-threatening, and my new favourite (hat tip to Knuckles) Energy Feudalism. I would like to see the latter fleshed out and declared a future risk.

  30. RobK says:

    I’d use “opportunistic weather dependent alternatives”.

  31. Rafe Champion says:

    I appreciate the nuances of language and I keep telling people to read the Appendix to 1984 to see how the language can be engineered to make certain ideas like freedom almost impossible to articulate.

    There is a place for strong language about the way things are going but not in a letter asking for assistance from state energy ministers. I am inclined to refer to conventional power rather than coal power just so they don’t get triggered immediately.

    I am just about to post up the European situation and point out that we have a wind drought at this minute and the proverbial would hit the fan in about an hour when the sun is gone if it was not for the coal plants that are doing 90% of capacity at present.

  32. WX says:


    I don’t propose that aggressive language be used for any-and-all purposes, but rather that, in selected instances, adjectives which would otherwise be extraneous, be included for subtle effect. Additionally, rather than continue to genuflect to dangerous propaganda, substitute words or phrases may serve to communicate educated and tempered contradiction.

Comments are closed.