Renewable Power Australia – Finkel Scheme: Replacing Mad With Bad

Posted on Sat 06/10/2017 by

2


By Andrew Bolt ~

The Turnbull Government claims the Finkel report’s plan will cut your power bills and end the climate war.  What a joke: how can moving to nearly 50 per cent renewable energy do anything but make electricity a luxury item? Remove Turnbull before he destroys both the power grid and the Liberals.

Judith Sloan:

Look at what happens to the penetration of renewables under the Finkel recommendations: it goes from 16 per cent of electricity generation now to 42 per cent in 2030 — not far off Labor’s holy grail of 50 per cent. It’s no wonder Labor is tempted to sign on.

Gas goes from 6 per cent in 2020 to 5 per cent in 2030 and to just 3 per cent in 2050 — so much for the CET being neutral about technology. For a country with abundant gas supplies, this is a ridiculous result and is in stark contrast with the US experience, where the take-up of gas to electricity plants has led to falling emissions without any real government intervention.

And consider Finkel’s Soviet-like command that coal-fired electricity plants must give at least three years’ warning of closure, even if these plants are haemorrhaging money in the meantime. He can’t be serious.

A possibly useful suggestion in the report is that all new renewable energy providers must include back-up as part of their offerings — batteries or pumped hydro storage, for example.

Given that wind has a utilisation rate generally of between 25 and 30 per cent of its maximum capacity, and factoring in the cost of the battery back-up, this requirement could triple the cost of wind power, at least in the short term….

It might be better than nothing, but it doesn’t solve the reliability issue likely to plague the electricity system. It will be those creaking old coal-fired power plants doing that, even though under the CET there will be no new investment in coal.

Do the damn maths. Much higher power bills. More lost jobs. Little if any new investment in reliable coal-fired power without subsisides and guarantees. And all to make no difference at all to the climate.

So this is a lie:

The federal government is holding out the prospect of big savings on power bills

And this is Malcolm Turnbull’s big plan? What on earth is the point of the Liberal party?

Turnbull will argue that it could at least “end the climate wars” and win more votes. I doubt it very much, but even were he right that’s more reason to stop it now. Ruining Australia is no respectable plan for any politicians.

David Crowe – and I’m putting the huge caveats and catches in bold:

Household electricity bills would be $90 lower every year under the new target compared with a business-as-usual ­approach over the years to 2030, as the new scheme encourages wind and solar without punishing coal.

But there’s a catch. The savings estimate, which is a very early estimate from government advisers, is based on a key assumption about climate change in yesterday’s report from Australia’s Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel.

The report’s modelling assumes a CET that favours power generators producing fewer than 0.6 tonnes of carbon emissions for every megawatt hour of ­electricity.

Even the very best coal-fired power stations cannot meet this benchmark.

In other words, all the modelling assumes a target that knocks coal out of the scheme…

The $90 saving is highly theo­retical…

Crowe misses the biggest caveat at all, only hinted at in the first bit I bolded.

This latest scheme can be said to be better only when you compare it to the insanity of existing global warming policies – the ones we were once assured were great.

This is just an attempt to replace the mad with the bad.

And the question must remain: WHY ARE WE DOING ANY OF THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Will all these global warming projects here lower the world’s temperatures? Not by anything anyone can mention.

Would any global warming theoretically stopped be bad? Not on the evidence so far.

Are we setting an important example to the big emitters who might actually make some difference? No, the top four emitters – China, the US, India and Russia – are all increasing their own emissions under the Paris deal or (the US) pulling out of the Paris deal.

All pain, no gain, yet the politicians and the media make out that they’re doing incredibly important things with their absolutely useless policies.

Andrew Bolt writes for the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, and The Advertiser and runs Australia’s most-read political blog. On week nights he hosts The Bolt Report on Sky News at 7pm and his Macquarie Radio show at 8pm with Steve Price.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog . http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Advertisements