South Australia’s Wind Power Debacle: Supermarkets Sacking Staff, While Sales of Portable Generators Boom

And what is that stuff called that portable generators run on again?? Oh that’s right – fossil fuels!

Greens and their feel-good, useless windmills. Creating hugely expensive, unreliable and unwanted energy causing a boom in Chinese made fossil fuel generators (using our demonised coal to make them of course!)

Another great example of Greens and their feel-good intentions and insane policies that is “Killing The Earth To Save It”!

You really can’t make this stuff up.

STOP THESE THINGS

spot-price-sa-2017

Reliable, secure and affordable electricity is one of those things that the last few generations of Australians have largely taken for granted.

Not so in Australia’s so-called ‘wind power capital’, South Australia. These days, Croweaters count their blessings if power is delivered at all and count their pennies every time they’re hit with a power bill that is magnitudes greater than the last.

With a power supply to rival Equatorial Africa and retail prices more than double their neighbouring states, South Australians are at wits end. The first article from The Australian deals with the crashing economic impact that South Australia’s rocketing power prices are having on business, while the second details the kind of DIY spirit that’s needed in a State obsessed with its attempt to run on sunshine and breezes.

Supermarket staff cut to absorb $2.5m rise in power costs
The Australian
Meredith Booth
10 February 2017

One…

View original post 827 more words


Japan Infuriating Enviros By Building 45 New Coal Power Plants

Coal-fired power is dead Update…

Good news for Australia’s flailing economy. It’s a pity that the hard-green lobby and climate elites have successfully demonised coal under the weight of “global warming” hysteria, shifting hard to green-energy madness mode, selling more coal than Australia uses, making energy prices skyrocket, pushing jobs, industry and ’emissions’ offshore.

Nuts.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/01/japan-infuriating-enviros-by-building-45-new-coal-power-plants/

From the Daily Caller:

Environmental activists are fuming over Japan’s plans to build as many as 45 new coal-fired power stations in the coming years.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is still firmly behind plans to build coal plants, despite repeatedpressuresfromenvironmentalists to stop construction of the major new coal plants. Abe wants more new coal plants to make sure the island nation isn’t too reliant on any one source of electricity.

“Japan needs to import 95 per cent of all its energy sources,” Tom O’Sullivan, an energy analyst with Mathyos Global Advisory in Tokyo, told Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “So it’s trying to diversify its fuel sources and it doesn’t want to be too reliant on any one market.”

Most of the coal Japan plans to burn in these plants will be imported from the U.S. or Australia. The country is also building additional…

View original post 294 more words


Aussie Chief Scientist: Renewable Energy Push Hurts the Poor

Another example of how it is not supposed “Global Warming” that hurts the poor, rather the draconian “Green” policies, schemes and scams that bring misery, doom and gloom.

Watts Up With That?

Wind_cash_flow_scr

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has strongly criticised the impact of renewable energy policies on the poor, working class people and migrants.

Renewable energy push to hit Labor’s heartland

The Australian12:00AM December 29, 2016
MICHAEL OWEN SA Bureau Chief Adelaide @mjowen

Dr Finkel, who is conducting a review of the electricity market for the federal government following the statewide blackout in South Australia in September, said people who rented properties or lived in apartments were limited in their ability to install new technologies.

Migrants with limited English, people with poor financial literacy and those struggling to make ends meet were at risk of paying ­increased costs to subsidise households or businesses able to invest in new technologies. Passive or loyal consumers who were not ­engaged in managing their electricity demand and costs were vulnerable too, Dr Finkel added.

The danger was that, as…

View original post 461 more words


9 Graphs That Prove Carbon Dioxide Is Our Best Friend

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe
.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

carbon-dioxide-leaf_compressed

Bookmark this brilliant explanation of life-giving fossil fuels, ergo CO2, by Climate and Energy reasonalist Alex ALEX EPSTEIN …

Via The Daily Caller :

9 Graphs That Prove Using Fossil Fuels Hasn’t Harmed The Planet

Photo of Alex Epstein

ALEX EPSTEIN
President, Center for Industrial Progress
1:17 PM 11/13/2014
.

And we have been using a lot more fossil fuels over the last 30 years — an 80 percent increase since 1980. Fossil fuel use has increased so dramatically that our environment “should be” much worse.

But is it?

 unnamed

Source: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook
*
Let’s look at the hard data for key environmental indicators like air quality, water quality, sanitation, disease, climate danger, and resource availability. They show that using fossil fuels hasn’t harmed the planet — it’s actually made the planet a far more livable place.

1. Air quality has improved in the countries that use the most fossil fuels.

Take the United States. Since 1970 our fossil fuel use has increased 40 percent, and yet according to President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, here is what has happened to 6 top air pollutants.

unnamed (1)

Source: U.S. EPA National Emissions Inventory Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data

The main cause here is anti-pollution technology that can generate energy from coal, oil, and natural gas evermore cleanly. As this technology is used more and more in China and India, their pollution problems will decrease, not increase.

2. Water quality has improved around the world

One of the most important environmental indicators is access to improved water sources, which measures access to clean water. Although we’re taught to think of fossil fuel use as fouling up our water, access to clean drinking water has gone up dramatically in the last 25 years as countries have used more fossil fuels.

unnamed (2)

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Nature doesn’t give us the ample clean water we need. We need a lot of cheap, reliable energy to power machines that clean up nature’s health hazards, such as water purification plants. Using fossil fuels supplied it.

3. Sanitation has also benefited from more fossil fuel energy

Here’s the big picture of sanitation — the percent of our world population with access to improved sanitation facilities, according to the World Bank.

Screen-Shot-2014-11-13-at-4.55.20-PM-620x478.png

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Note that as recently as 1990, under half the world had “improved sanitation facilities.” The increase to two thirds in only a few decades is a wonderful accomplishment, but a lot more development is necessary to make sure everyone has a decent, sanitary environment. And development requires energy.

Want a more sanitary environment for people around the globe? We need more cheap, reliable energy from fossil fuels.

4. More fossil fuels, mild global warming

For decades we have heard predictions of runaway global warming that is making our climate progressively unlivable. In 1986 climate scientist James Hansen predicted that “if current trends are unchanged,” temperatures would rise .5 to 1.0 degree Fahrenheit in the 1990s and 2 to 4 degrees in the first decade of the 2000s. According to Hansen’s own department at NASA, from the beginning to the end of the 1990s, temperatures were .018 degrees Fahrenheit (.01 degrees Celsius) higher, and from 2000 to 2010, temperatures were .27 degrees Fahrenheit (.15 degrees Celsius) higher—meaning he was wrong many times over.

In 1989 journalist Bill McKibben, summarizing the claims of Hansen and others, confidently predicted that by now we would “burn up, to put it bluntly.” Looking at the actual data on a graph, it becomes clear that he was completely wrong.

Here’s a graph of the last hundred-plus years of temperature compared to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can see that CO2 emissions rose rapidly, most rapidly in the last fifteen years.

Global warming since 1850 — the full story

Screen-Shot-2014-11-13-at-4.55.29-PM-620x477.png

Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

But there is not nearly the warming or the pattern of warming that we have been led to expect. We can see a very mild warming trend overall — less than 1 degree Celsius (less than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over a century — which in itself is unremarkable, given that there is always a trend one way or the other, depending on the time scale you select. But notice that there are smaller trends of warming and cooling, signifying that CO2 is not a particularly powerful driver, and especially notice that the current trend is flat when it “should be” skyrocketing.

Given how much our culture is focused on the issue of CO2-induced global warming, it is striking how little warming there has been. We’re talking tenths of a degree. Without instruments, we couldn’t perceive it. Maybe that’s why the doomsayers stopped talking about “global warming” and started using “climate change.”

5. More fossil fuels, less climate danger

Is our climate becoming more dangerous?

The key statistic here, one that is unfortunately almost never mentioned, is “climate-related deaths,” which tracks changes over time in how many people die from a climate-related cause, including droughts, floods, storms, and extreme temperatures.

The trends are shocking.

Screen-Shot-2014-11-17-at-3.30.17-PM-620x478.png

Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2013); Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; EM-DAT International Disaster Database

In the last eighty years, as CO2 emissions have most rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide fell by an incredible rate of 98 percent. That means the incidence of death from climate is fifty times lower than it was eighty years ago.

Clearly, as the climate-related death data shows, there are some major climate-related benefits — namely, the power of fossil-fueled machines to build a durable civilization that is highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on.

Some might say the planet will soon be unlivable (though environmentalists have been saying that for 40 years) because of mounting dangers like rising sea levels. Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth terrified many with claims of likely twenty-foot rises in sea levels. Given the temperature trends, however, we wouldn’t expect warming to have a dramatic effect on sea levels. And, in fact, it hasn’t.

Read all nine here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/9-graphs-that-prove-using-fossil-fuels-hasnt-harmed-the-planet/#ixzz4U8uL5Fkr

•••

CO2 (Fossil Fuel) Related :

CO2 = Extreme Weather Related :

CO2 = Sea Level Rise Related :

9 Graphs That Prove Using Fossil Fuels Hasn’t Harmed The Planet

Photo of Alex Epstein

ALEX EPSTEIN
President, Center for Industrial Progress

Conventional wisdom is that the more fossil fuels we use, the less livable we make our planet.

And we have been using a lot more fossil fuels over the last 30 years — an 80 percent increase since 1980. Fossil fuel use has increased so dramatically that our environment “should be” much worse.

But is it?

 unnamed

Source: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook

Let’s look at the hard data for key environmental indicators like air quality, water quality, sanitation, disease, climate danger, and resource availability. They show that using fossil fuels hasn’t harmed the planet — it’s actually made the planet a far more livable place.

1. Air quality has improved in the countries that use the most fossil fuels.

Take the United States. Since 1970 our fossil fuel use has increased 40 percent, and yet according to President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, here is what has happened to 6 top air pollutants.

unnamed (1)Source: U.S. EPA National Emissions Inventory Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data

The main cause here is anti-pollution technology that can generate energy from coal, oil, and natural gas evermore cleanly. As this technology is used more and more in China and India, their pollution problems will decrease, not increase.

2. Water quality has improved around the world

One of the most important environmental indicators is access to improved water sources, which measures access to clean water. Although we’re taught to think of fossil fuel use as fouling up our water, access to clean drinking water has gone up dramatically in the last 25 years as countries have used more fossil fuels.

unnamed (2)

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Nature doesn’t give us the ample clean water we need. We need a lot of cheap, reliable energy to power machines that clean up nature’s health hazards, such as water purification plants. Using fossil fuels supplied it.

3. Sanitation has also benefited from more fossil fuel energy

Here’s the big picture of sanitation — the percent of our world population with access to improved sanitation facilities, according to the World Bank.

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 4.55.20 PM

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Note that as recently as 1990, under half the world had “improved sanitation facilities.” The increase to two thirds in only a few decades is a wonderful accomplishment, but a lot more development is necessary to make sure everyone has a decent, sanitary environment. And development requires energy.

Want a more sanitary environment for people around the globe? We need more cheap, reliable energy from fossil fuels.

4. More fossil fuels, mild global warming

For decades we have heard predictions of runaway global warming that is making our climate progressively unlivable. In 1986 climate scientist James Hansen predicted that “if current trends are unchanged,” temperatures would rise .5 to 1.0 degree Fahrenheit in the 1990s and 2 to 4 degrees in the first decade of the 2000s. According to Hansen’s own department at NASA, from the beginning to the end of the 1990s, temperatures were .018 degrees Fahrenheit (.01 degrees Celsius) higher, and from 2000 to 2010, temperatures were .27 degrees Fahrenheit (.15 degrees Celsius) higher—meaning he was wrong many times over.

In 1989 journalist Bill McKibben, summarizing the claims of Hansen and others, confidently predicted that by now we would “burn up, to put it bluntly.” Looking at the actual data on a graph, it becomes clear that he was completely wrong.

Here’s a graph of the last hundred-plus years of temperature compared to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can see that CO2 emissions rose rapidly, most rapidly in the last fifteen years.

Global warming since 1850 — the full story

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 4.55.29 PM

Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

But there is not nearly the warming or the pattern of warming that we have been led to expect. We can see a very mild warming trend overall — less than 1 degree Celsius (less than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over a century — which in itself is unremarkable, given that there is always a trend one way or the other, depending on the time scale you select. But notice that there are smaller trends of warming and cooling, signifying that CO2 is not a particularly powerful driver, and especially notice that the current trend is flat when it “should be” skyrocketing.

Given how much our culture is focused on the issue of CO2-induced global warming, it is striking how little warming there has been. We’re talking tenths of a degree. Without instruments, we couldn’t perceive it. Maybe that’s why the doomsayers stopped talking about “global warming” and started using “climate change.”

5. More fossil fuels, less climate danger

Is our climate becoming more dangerous?

The key statistic here, one that is unfortunately almost never mentioned, is “climate-related deaths,” which tracks changes over time in how many people die from a climate-related cause, including droughts, floods, storms, and extreme temperatures.

The trends are shocking.

Screen Shot 2014-11-17 at 3.30.17 PM

Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2013); Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; EM-DAT International Disaster Database

In the last eighty years, as CO2 emissions have most rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide fell by an incredible rate of 98 percent. That means the incidence of death from climate is fifty times lower than it was eighty years ago.

Clearly, as the climate-related death data shows, there are some major climate-related benefits — namely, the power of fossil-fueled machines to build a durable civilization that is highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on.

Some might say the planet will soon be unlivable (though environmentalists have been saying that for 40 years) because of mounting dangers like rising sea levels. Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth terrified many with claims of likely twenty-foot rises in sea levels. Given the temperature trends, however, we wouldn’t expect warming to have a dramatic effect on sea levels. And, in fact, it hasn’t.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/9-graphs-that-prove-using-fossil-fuels-hasnt-harmed-the-planet/2/#ixzz4U8zDhKiI


South Australia’s Repeated Wind Power Blackouts Force Retreat to Fossil-Fuels: Base-load Gas Plant Ordered to Run Constantly

So, it took job losses, heavy-industries to close and relocate, fuel poverty, economic ruin, environmental destruction, bird and bat slaughter, infrasound health atrocities, numerous multi-million dollar blackouts and the internationally famous September statewide blackout, not to mention the international trashing of SA’s business reputation for Australia’s climate-obsessed Government(s) to finally realise that *fossil fuels* are the ONLY genuine source of reliable baseload energy?!

What a disastrous joke the windmill and solar-panel experiment has truly become.

But fear not! Wind weasels and the eco-brainwashed will press on and most likely double-down on their insistence for “unreliable” energy sources in their religious quest to “SAVE THE PLANET”. Even if saving-the-planet means being 100% reliant on fossil fuels – the very energy source they despise!

Let that sink in for a minute.

STOP THESE THINGS

jay weatherill AEMO prescribes gas for Jay Weatherill’s fatal case of wind.

***

Clueless and desperate, Australia’s political leaders are fiddling while Rome continues to burn.

The calamity that is South Australia’s self-inflicted power pricing and supply chaos, threatens to spread across state borders like a malignant tumour.

While State Labor governments in Queensland and Victoria continue to talk the talk about their desire to carpet their states with tens of thousands of these things, it’s apparent that they’re not so keen to walk the walk.

Rocketing power prices, routine load shedding and statewide blackouts have not only rendered South Australia an international laughing stock, but make it a prescient warning about what happens when ideology trumps common sense, market economics and sound engineering.

The politicised nonsense keeps spewing forth, however.  Twaddle about batteries providing some kind of solution; and pie in the sky waffle about building interconnectors that cost $billions and…

View original post 2,528 more words


South Australia Blackout Report : Green Energy Failure

greens.jpg

•••

A new report by the national electricity regulator has found that September’s statewide blackout in South Australia, was a direct result of renewable unreliable power sources unable to cope with rapid or large changes in frequency, leading ultimately to a “black system”.

Hardly surprising news considering the intermittent nature of weather-dependent wind energy, leading to well-established ‘grid instability’.

Which leads to the ultimate question that “unreliable” energy critics have been asking since the rushed inception of “green” energy as part of the hysterical quest to “Save The Planet” – Why wasn’t the critical factor of grid instability discussed, factored in and ironed out before spending billions upon billions of taxpayers money on the now-failed wind experiment? Who will claim responsibility for the misguided allocation of now proven inferior, useless and failed wind technology?

This is the direct problem faced when big government and statist green central planning gets involved in the commercial sector. Market mechanisms are eliminated, the very mechanisms which promote proper checks and balances to make sure stuff works.

The schizophrenic race for “green” energy has been nothing more than a race by rent-seeking corporatist vampires to suck up unlimited government funds, grants and subsidies.

But hey, who cares about other people’s (taxpayers) hard-earned money when you’re trying to “Save The Planet” right?

When will we learn from our mistakes?

Einstein’s definition of insanity is becoming more and more relevant as we continue to go down the insane path of defunct wind and solar tech:

definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Einstein

Aus SA Blackout report.png

Image via Paul Homewood – NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Report via The Australian :

Michael Owen 11:44AM December 15, 2016

A new report by a national electricity regulator has found that, as occurred during September’s statewide blackout in South Australia, renewable power sources cannot cope with rapid or large changes in frequency, leading ultimately to a “black system”.

Spinning generators, motors and other devices synchronised to the frequency of the electricity system have naturally provided the inertia necessary to allow the system to cope with uncontrolled changes in frequency.

But new technologies such as a wind or solar have no or low inertia. Currently they have limited ability to dampen rapid changes in frequency.

“Finding new ways to provide inertia and respond to frequency changes is where work is required,” AEMC chairman John Pierce said.

AEMC is currently working on five rule change requests to address both immediate concerns in relation to emergency protection, particularly relating to South Australia’s current frequency issues, as well as new mechanisms to allow security to be maintained across the entire system.

Despite numerous warnings to the South Australian Labor government about the risk of frequency problems and increased load shedding, brownouts and blackouts, the state has pursued a renewable energy policy that has seen around 45 per cent of its generation come from wind and solar.

The state’s last coal-fired baseload power station was forced to shut in May because of the rise of renewables, with Premier Jay Weatherill and his Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis both declaring “coal is dead”. The state is now reliant upon an interconnector with Victoria to import coal-fired baseload power.

It has today emerged that a plan by the owners of the Northern power station and transmission company ElectraNet to reopen the power plant as a converter to stabilise the state’s wind-vulnerable grid was abandoned because of the red tape involved.

The power station would be demolished within one to two months but it would have taken at least a year for a full study and assessment on the reopening proposal under government regulation, before a decision could be made on funding.

While there has been no cost estimate released, such a move would likely be very expensive.

ElectraNet is urgently looking at options to stabilise the state’s grid in the absence of the Northern power station.

Mr Pierce said there were challenges ahead in managing system security, which was essential to allow reliable electricity supplies to be provided to customers.

“The changes that need to be made centre on the physics of energy supply, transmission and meeting demand,” Mr Pierce said.

“Many different technical options are emerging in today’s electricity sector and we want to encourage further innovation — rewarding the best options that may mature over time.

“We also need market mechanisms that reward the best outcomes while keeping consumer prices as low as possible over the long term.”

The AEMC interim report suggests changes that include new measures to enable provision of additional inertia for the system most likely through synchronous machines and development of fast acting frequency response services, which might be provided via invertor-based generators such as wind turbines, by energy storage devices and by demand-response schemes.

“This review puts an umbrella over many issues being raised by stakeholders in relation to the power system’s ability to keep the lights on while maintaining its frequency at a constant level,” Mr Pierce said.

“The review will consider both policy mechanisms that are in place now; and analyse how any of the feasible emissions reduction policies may impact the future power system.”

He also said that a more efficient gas market would improve the power system’s ability to integrate renewables like wind and solar by providing fast-start backup for intermittent generation.

“Making it easier to buy and sell gas helps lower supply costs for gas-fired power stations which are now replacing coal generators,” he said.

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the Turnbull government welcomed the draft AEMC report.

“The increasing amount of solar and wind is creating a real challenge to the security of our nation’s electricity market, as they are non-synchronous generation technologies,” Mr Frydenberg said.

“As Bill Shorten and his mates in the Labor states chase unrealistic high renewable energy targets they have failed to take into account the fact that the increasing amount of solar and wind power they are encouraging into the system is reducing energy secruity across the National Electricity Market.

“In contrast, the benefits that hydro, gas and coal have provided, essentially for free, to keep the electricity system secure have been taken for granted.”

“As more intermittent generation comes into the grid, new markets are going to have be created for things like inertia which are essential to energy security.”

He said these issues will be considered by the Finkel Review and the AEMC.

The AEMC is calling submissions by February 9.

•••

Countries Seeing The Light (literally)

Ideologically aggressive “green” GERMANY has spent €1 Trillion Euros, of other people’s money, on Wind and Solar power through the Energiewende program, only to undergo her biggest coal-fired power expansion in history.

German Coal-Fired Power Expansion.jpg

Source : Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND)

CHINA is falsely portrayed by green-energy advocates as “leaders in the push for renewable technology”.

In reality, China setup their own small-scale wind and solar power generation purely to appease the West in a symbolic show of “Green” faith.

The result of China’s symbolic wind experiment? –> China Counts the Staggering Cost of its Wind Power Experiment | Climatism

Where they are winning, big-time, is in the mass-manufacture of wind and solar applications, sold back to the climate change obsessed West.

And the power used to manufacture the 16th Century industrial windmills, ironically, coming from the very coal that the West has condemned, demonised and shipped-off to China so she can open a coal-fired power station every week!

Insanity on a bizarre level.

China’s energy reality

China are opening a new-generation coal-fired power plant every week. –> China 5-Year Plan Confirms Massive Expansion Of Coal Fired Capacity | Climatism

Meanwhile, back in climate change obsessed Australia, they are “Blowing Up” and decommissioning their coal-fired power plants!

Playford Coal Station Blowup Jobs.jpeg

Playford coal-fired power station in Port Augusta — put out of business by Labor’s green policies — had its towers brought down by explosives.

The world sure got that message: South Australia is closed for investment in heavy industry, and so, soon, will be the rest of Australia if we don’t learn from its madness.

Blowing up the Playford station was Labor, Greens and now Liberals saying yes to wind farms and the country’s highest power prices, and saying yes to the country’s highest unemployment, too.

It gets even worse. South Australia relies on a giant extension cord connected to neighbouring Victoria’s coal-fired power station Hazlewood, in order to supply baseload energy when the “wind don’t blow”.

About 600MW or a third of SA’s energy is drawn from Victoria. And as we know, when the windmills failed in September’s statewide blackout, the system flicked to the Victorian coal-fired interconnector and it overloaded leading to Statewide lights out.

So, you would think that increasing coal-fired power capacity or another baseload alternative like nuclear would be necessary to save industry, jobs, reduce massive power-price hikes and to simply keep the lights on, right?

Well in the utopian land of Oz, that answer is a big eco-NO! And hold onto your chair for why…

The Victorian Labor Government is decommissioning Hazlewood as of 2017 in order to ramp up its own defunct renewable unreliable energy program!

Hazelwood coal power station to close with loss of up to 1,000 jobs | Australia news | The Guardian

That definition of insanity again please…

“doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Einstein

16th Century, weather-dependent Windmills have failed as a legitimate baseload energy source.

All they really do is relieve climate guilt for the gullible while diverting trillions of dollars of taxpayers money to rent-seeking corporate vampires.

•••

See also :

Related :


The World Needs More Energy!

A very powerful and important read by Steven Lyazi – a student and worker in Kampala, Uganda.

Wow!

Excerpts that grabbed my attention:

“But it is also because callous, imperialistic people in rich countries use exaggerated, imaginary or phony environmental concerns and fake disasters to justify laws, regulations and excuses not to let poor countries use fossil fuels or nuclear power or develop their economies.
They tell us we should only use renewable energy. They say nuclear power is dangerous, and oil, gas and coal are dirty and cause dangerous climate change. They don’t seem to think or care about the poverty, diseases and starvation that we suffer because we do not have fossil fuels.

“But that does not mean we should accept more poverty. It does not mean these rich, powerful people should be able to take away our right to live. It does not mean they have a right to put make-believe scare stories in our papers, on our televisions and radios, and on the internet.
It does not mean they should invent claims that our planet is boiling and we are causing droughts and floods – and so we should throw away coal and other cheap energies that we need to survive.

“But getting rid of poverty and disease is also a big change that would be good for all of us, and cannot happen without fossil fuels.”

Read it all…

PA Pundits - International

Driessenprofile2Paul Driessen from CFACT introduces this Guest Post ~

In his new article, my young Ugandan mentee Steven Lyazi makes a passionate appeal, asking that African and global leaders do much more to make fossil fuels and electricity available for poor families, nations and communities around the world. Only in that way, he convincingly argues, can the world’s poor improve their lives, living standards, health and life spans.

Poor countries have a right to use fossil fuels and will no longer let anyone stop us

By Steven Lyazi ~

Our planet is blessed with abundant resources that can generate enormous energy, provide raw materials for wondrous technologies, and build modern homes, roads and other structures – to support every man, woman and child on this earth. But can and will political powers make them available to the people who need them?

Of all these resources, energy is the most…

View original post 1,219 more words