A gale behind wind power?

From the AFR:

Unsubsidised wind power is now cheaper than new coal and gas fired power stations due to the carbon price scheme, rising fuel prices and banks’ reluctance to invest in fossil fuel projects, says new research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Even if the carbon price scheme were to be repealed, it would still be more expensive to build a new coal-fired power station.

…BNEF head of clean energy research Kobad Bhavnagri said: “The general ramifications of these numbers is that Australia will leapfrog from coal-based energy systems to renewables; there may not be a need for gas as a transition fuel.

…The research says electricity can be supplied from a new wind farm at a cost of $80 a megawatt hour – for those projects built in the best locations – to $113 a MW/h. In contrast, electricity from a black coal power station ranges from $143 to $190 and from brown coal plants it is $243.

This is what a carbon price is designed to accelerate. It’s put in place by a couple of bureaucrats with crude estimates but it unleashes a torrent of minds seeking profit in the newly developing area. Costs always plunge more quickly than expected.  Of course, this story suggests wind and solar might be getting there regardless. But why on earth would you want to go back to those few crusty bureaucratic minds to slow the pace of change?

Comments

  1. “Unsubsidised wind power is now cheaper than new coal and gas fired power stations due to the carbon price scheme,”

    And the carbon Tax is not a subsidy? Yeah, right.

  2. Thanks for highlighting this story, HnH.

    In this theme, something to enjoy:

    Journalist and scientist Andrew Freedman (professional reporter, published widely, and holds a Masters in Climate and Society from Columbia University.) what new science is saying about freaky 2013 weather.

    Download/listen (14MB)

  3. Didn’t see this post before I posted a link. As usual, 3d1k began by attacking the messenger:


    Not that a New Energy Finance unit has a vested interest of course…

    Pot calling kettle black, eh, 3d? Lets see you crunch the numbers and come with a different result.

        • Count me a huge skeptic of this announcement. I am not an expert on this but I have read some pretty damning stuff re the comparison between wind and coal and the gap is simply too huge to have been closed this easily.

          I think the fudging will be found in the “true cost of wind power”. There will be some massive omissions – like the cost of “backup”……

          • Allegations of fudging does not quite cut it for me. If you don’t have any idea about the subject or an alternative accounting of costs, maybe you should just shut up instead.

          • No fudging by the financial sector? Mav, you’re a banker’s dream.

            “Have I got a sub-prime deal for you”

          • 3d1k, Do us all a favour – get your contacts at the MCA to sponsor a Deloitte Access Economics “fact finding mission” on the fudging. /sarc 😉

            PS: Last I checked, Bloomberg was a news organisation, not a financial organisation. You do need to work on getting basic stuff right while flinging believable sh!t.

          • Phil, Do you account for the blood and treasure (defence spending) that the “Western civilisation” spent, “defending” their oil interest in the Middle East?

          • No-one would have ever fought over anything, or over any resources at all, without a use for fossil fuels being discovered for industry and mobility?

            Peculiar interpretation of human nature and history.

            We could have just been honourable pacifists and let someone like Hitler or Stalin corner all the oil supplies, or be the first to get nukes, or whatever. Honourable pacifist cultures tend to not be particularly sustainable, though, which makes them somewhat irrelevant as a likely option for the future of all humanity.

          • No-one would have ever fought over anything, or over any resources at all, without a use for fossil fuels being discovered for industry and mobility?

            This is what’s called a Straw Man fallacy.

            We could have just been honourable pacifists and let someone like Hitler or Stalin corner all the oil supplies, or be the first to get nukes, or whatever.

            This is what’s called a False Dilemma fallacy.

  4. Is it even wise to build new energy ‘solutions’ reliant on climatic conditions, conditions themselves that advocates of new energy claim are becoming increasingly erratic and unpredictable 😉

    • It’s probably far better to simply continue pumping warming gasses into the atmosphere and destroy the climate completely then, right?

      At least that way, your mining bosses keep making billions. 👿

      • So why are “save the planet” environmentalists such a united force against hydro dams everywhere they are proposed?

        Their real underlying motive is to destroy western civilisation. Watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside, eaten up by envy and hate for the successful. If everyone can’t have equal shares, just smash all the toys.

          • Jesus Phil, that’s some really loopy stuff. How can there be any discourse in the sensible middle ground when you post comments like that? Most environmentalists may be naive, but they’re well-intentioned. They appreciate the benefits western that civilisation has brought them as much as anyone else, they’d just like to minimise the damage.

            If anyone is “eaten up by envy and hate” its you. Simmer down mate.

          • Read Patrick Moore, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout”. He was a founding member of Greenpeace in the 1960’s, and saw the gradual takeover of Greenpeace offices by people who wore red berets and put up Che Guevara posters.

            I accept that most people in these organisations are not outright Watermelons, but most of them are ignorant useful idiots who have been pumped full of rubbish propaganda. They know nothing about the benefits of the culture they have been trained to attack.

            Sorry if my hyperbole leads you to doubt the reality of this problem. It is a serious one. I agree with Matt Ridley, “The Rational Optimist”, that there is really nothing to worry about EXCEPT “self-fulfilling prophecy” politics in the name of “salvation”. I strongly recomment to people following this argument, to read Ridley’s book, and Patrick Moore’s one that I refer to. Both men are certainly not fringe nutter right-wingers.

          • I accept that most people in these organisations are not outright Watermelons, but most of them are ignorant useful idiots who have been pumped full of rubbish propaganda. They know nothing about the benefits of the culture they have been trained to attack.

            See, this is what I think every time I read a post from GSM or MattR extolling Libertarian Utopia.

        • In the interest of full disclosure, can you tell us if you work for Big oil or (but I repeat myself) the IPA or the CATO institute?

          I am an IT consultant. Never been a member of a labour union, lobby group, communist party, tea party, ALP and LNP. In other words, I represent myself and views expressed are my own.

          • I have said before, I do not work for any vested interests at all. Contributing to blog arguments is a passion, not a livelihood for me.

            I am a self employed professional, in a field that is nothing to do with consulting, politics, or law. I merely want western civilisation to do the right thing, continue to exist and thrive, and to continue to leave things in as better a condition for our descendants as our ancestors did for us.

            Our ancestors were not fools; they understood that there are externalities that are positive as well as negative, and they understood that handing us a world based on fossil fuel use was a better one than what preceded it.

            I also see the “vested interests” as overwhelmingly on the side of the “central planning” types. It is a tragedy that the situation is constantly portrayed as the reverse of this, with the real vested interests and rent seekers laughing all the way to the bank, and their useful idiots patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

          • This page could so have done without the “all Greens are watermelons” junk comment.

            🙄

            Worthless dross.

        • PhilBest – you’re an enigma.

          I avidly read all your posts on the housing market. They’re incredibly insightful and I agree with everything you say.

          But when it comes to the environment you’re either completely clueless or you’re putting ideology before evidence.

          I guess no one’s perfect….

          • DO Greens oppose hydro dams or not?

            That is my core point here. Notice how the Green activists always jump all over my hyperbole and divert attention from the pointed question I am raising about them?

            Please point me to where Greens are advocating FOR sustainable hydro dam energy to reduce CO2 emissions.

            And do read Patrick Moore and Matt Ridley. The Greens do not deserve to be regarded as modern day saints beyond criticism.

          • I’m not a green Phil and I’m not arguing for them. I’m an engineer. I’m arguing for the case of empirical evidence over ideology.

            “Please point me to where Greens are advocating FOR sustainable hydro dam energy to reduce CO2 emissions.”

            Hydro EROI is highly variable. Hydro dams may or may not make sense depending on the location and terrain.

            Instead of reading Greens maybe you’d be better off reading scientific/engineering literature. This site is probably the best place to start:

            http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3910

        • Their real underlying motive is to destroy western civilisation. Watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside, eaten up by envy and hate for the successful. If everyone can’t have equal shares, just smash all the toys.

          Idiocy like this detracts quite significantly from the good arguments you make about land use.

          • CyrusP makes a fair point:

            “…..Instead of reading Greens maybe you’d be better off reading scientific/engineering literature…..”

            Maybe I HAVE been reading too much actual utterances of environmentalists themselves:

            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1009400/posts

            Note the referencing, if you want to check them out. There are plenty of similar collations. BTW even if YOU think this stuff is nothing to worry about, do you have a clue what your kids and/or grandkids are being told by their teachers? Many of the authors of those comments in that link above, are celebrities in the enviro movement, not shunned fringe wackos.

            “Revert2Mean” on this thread, is obviously showing HIS true colours with the kind of rhetoric he is using.

    • I’m sure that new energy ‘solutions’ such as wind may become even more efficient due to increasingly erratic and unpredictable weather. From what I’m seeing the unpredictability is not producing calmer weather.

      • Good one!

        3d1k, since you are such a big fan of Nassim Taleb, it seems wind energy benefits from from unpredictability.

        Bingo! Wind energy is anti-fragile 🙂

    • dumb_non_economist

      2d, I think I must have missed your point, are we expecting the amount of sun and wind to be erratic and unpredictable?

      • I was being lighthearted…although the various claims of climate theorists do seem in a state of flux. Lorax linked to a good piece a few weeks ago wherein the authors (both climate activists) acknowledged that as the science is evolving, predictions not set in stone. Expect the unexpected!

          • Alex (is that Alex Harvey?), you have linked to Dr Tamsin Edward‘s blog. She’s a newbie in climate science, and she’s making a subtle point that you have clearly missed.

          • Rusty, no, it means that climate scientists have underestimated the power of feedback loops. Google “global warming feedback loop””.

          • it doesn’t necessary mean that at all. That’s retroactively assrting something.

            But it definately says that because of the variance, in either direction, means the modelling they have is wrong.

          • So far observed results are no where nearly as detrimental as the alarmist IPCC’s models have projected. The models are hopelessly flawed.

            More here about the flaws in AGW modelling and the science that really isn’t;

            http://www.vkooten.net/?p=469

          • So it means the models are wrong, and climate scientists don’t know how the climate works.

            I’m sure it took Newton a few goes to figure out the exact equations defining the three laws of motion, as well, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have a pretty good idea of how they worked.

            To follow on from that example, we still don’t know how gravity works, but that doesn’t prevent us from predicting how it will behave, nor do many people live in fear of suddenly shooting off into space one day.

          • R2M, no, I’m not Alex Harvey. And I’m quite aware of the subtle point Tamsin is making. I was trying to make the same subtle point to RP. I’ve followed Tamsin’s blog intermittently since it first started.

        • dumb_non_economist

          2d,

          Got it, so that’s why you had the smiley!!

          I’m too lazy to learn to use emoticons, if you can’t cherry pick them off a board it’s too much leaning effort for me!

    • Um, ok, but be aware that Barry Brook’s bravenewclimate site is a pro-nuke site, and that colours all the arguments there.

      There are a host of solutions to the intermittancy problem. Google it.

      • Yes, I’m well aware that Barry Brook is a gen 4 nuclear advocate. The author of the paper also has a background that is partly in the nuclear power industry. He seems to be a pretty solid number cruncher, though. And many of his conclusions coincide with those of David Mckay, currently scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK, who is definitely not a nuclear advocate. Worth reading his e-book, Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air.

      • PS, I’m no great fan of coal. Even ignoring the greenhouse gas issue, it is a dirty fuel. But I am not convinced about wind being all it’s cracked up to be. I think we should be looking more to gas in the short term.

        • Why? Let’s build a resilient, renewable infrastructure while we still can, rather than continue to pump CO2 (and methane, with gas mining) into the atmosphere.

          It’s a no brainer!

          • The world is going to continue to pump CO2 until alternative reliable affordable capacity becomes available.

            Fortunately there remains some decades or more of supply giving ample opportunity for technological discovery (those 150 PhDs working on thorium in China?) and transition to new energy source – and we do have nuclear.

          • Read Jesse Ausubel on “the decarbonisation of the global economy”, and Gwyn Prins et al, “How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course”.

            It was happening anyway until the utopian one world government guys messed with the natural free market process, by driving production from nations that were cleaner and getting cleaner, to “dirtier” nations.

          • Why? Because what you call renewables will never be able to supply the world’s energy needs (read David Mackay’s “Sustainable Energy – without the Hot Air” to find out why) and the world doesn’t yet seem ready to embrace nuclear power, which is the only real long-term option.

          • Nuclear with enhancements, and hydrogen, are very much part of what Ausubel saw as the likely way forward. He is a “systems analyst”, and tracks Kondratieff cycles. The carbon intensity of the global economy has in fact been reducing over the long term. Carbon represents the “bulk” in fossil fuels. The less bulky fuels (eg gas) tend to become commercially viable, beating the more bulky ones (coal, followed by oil). US CO2 emissions have fallen substantially thanks to a move to gas.

            Hydro’s contribution to global energy is not to be sneezed at, and has contributed to the decarbonisation process. I am continually challenging Green activists why they consistently oppose new hydro dams when they claim to want to save humanity from being cooked to death by CO2’s effect on global climate. I understood their excuses are all about the uniqueness of precious valley ecosytems, yadda, yadda, yadda.

            And as you say, there is also inconsistency on nuclear. This is a reason why I say, not without cause from the history of the Green movement, that they are hell bent on collapsing the modern economy. Maybe it is ignorance rather than malice. But Matt Ridley – no fool – regards this as the only threat to continued human progress worth worrying about.

            James Lovelock is a refreshing exception among Greenies – his culture is Gaia religion rather than watermelonism. Because he really does care about the environment, he loves nuclear.

    • Good link, thanks. I have read similar before including, of all places, document prepared by global turbine producer.

      The analysis in the report above needs be made public for independent review.

  5. “Unsubsidised wind power is now cheaper than new coal and gas fired power stations due to the carbon price scheme.”

    … does anyone honestly need to point out the irony of this statement? Unsubsidised but ‘cheaper’ due to massive government intervention in the market. So it’s ‘cheaper’ because the government made already cheap, efficient and clean sources way more expensive. Honestly, it is laughable that this is passed as an intelligent statement, lol.

    Not to mention the ‘compensation’.

    This should read “government kills cheap power, only expensive, unreliable, discredited sources of power remain.” This should be read as an indictment not lauded as an accomplishment, even if it weren’t a complete load of bollocks.

    Wind is NOT cheaper than coal even at the current ‘price’ of air. Just one article I found on this issue:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/12/21/why-its-the-end-of-the-line-for-wind-power/

      • Yeah, I love bureacrats, not like I would scrap the entire department of climate change, every renewable subsidy and any public funding associated with the green movement if I had the chance or anything. I just love bureacrats.

        • Another rabidly antiscience, right-of-Genghis-Kahn comment.

          Sheeze!

          Do you really think the fossil fuel energy industry was established or has operated with government tax breaks and assistance? lol.

          • Another nonsense, full of bile statement from the anti-science left of Stalin crowd.

            (actually the ‘right of genkis khan’ statement is interesting, are you implying that Gengis Khan was the first ever small government free-market neo-liberal? Haha).

            Mining for coal, gas and uranium are all quite commercial without any assistance from the government thank you very much (unless you count the bogus ‘subsidies’ that basically includes infrastructure, utter nonsense).

            And at the end of the day, at least coal actually works and is cheap and reliable. Wind does not work when the wind does not blow, no matter how hard you wish it did.

            Seen ‘renewable’ stocks lately? It ain’t pretty, but it sure as hell is funny. 😀

        • +1 MattR.

          R2M,
          Yes, anyone who does not accept the dogma of your sanity challenged Climate evangelists is a rabid Ghenghis Khan type, worthy of dismemberment was it?.

          Good grief.

          • See my reply to R2M, can someone explain to me what being ‘to the right of Ghengis Khan’ means? I’ve looked everywhere and I can’t seem to find his opinion on free-markets, deregulation, small government, low taxes and individual liberty anywhere! 😀

        • But your chosen political party wouldn’t abolish the Climate Change Dept. Indeed because MR Abbott is determined to tackle climate change via “direct action” (read regulation and ad hoc decisions by bureaucrats)the Dept’ would expand dramatically.

          So! I am forced to conclude that you are either:

          1. a hypocrite and not worth listening to
          2. a political hack incapable of sensible reasoning that disagrees with your own party and not worth listening to
          3. paid to write anti-climate change drivel and not worth listening to
          4. any number of much less flattering things and not worth listening to

          One conclusion at least is clear!

          • Huh?

            Ref: Buturovic and Klein,

            “Economic Enlightenment in Relation to College-going, Ideology, and Other Variables: A Zogby Survey of Americans”

            It sure as heck ain’t “conservatives” whose intuitions are all wrong, at least on economics……

    • arescarti42MEMBER

      Wind is cheaper because it is cheaper. Coal is only “cheap” when you ignore all the horrendous costs that emitting all that CO2 inflicts on wider society. By interfering in the market the government is correcting a long standing market failure.

      It is honestly laughable that you’d pass up coal as a cheap, efficient and clean source of power.

      • Those hidden costs are called “externalities”. It’s worth googling “fossil fuel externalities” to see how vast they are.

        • Those hidden costs are called “externalities”.

          Externalities ? There’s no such thing as externalities in the Libertarian mind. The Market sees all, knows all, and never makes mistakes. Like god.

        • Economists back in the classical era pointed out repeatedly that many of the things that have negative externalities, have such massive positive externalities well in excess of the negative ones, that the only reason to “price” negative externalities is “equity”.

          Our decadent civilisation has completely lost its reason, taking negative externalities as a reason to completely shut something down. The positive externalities are now just taken for granted, they just grew on trees, so to speak, and we would have had them anyway.

          The reason these things were far better understood a few generations ago, is that memories were still fresh re the era that predated the things like fossil fuels, which era lacked not just the negative externalities, but the POSITIVE ones as well.

          • Our decadent civilisation has completely lost its reason, taking negative externalities as a reason to completely shut something down.

            Erm, yes, an existential threat to our existence is a reason to shut something down!

            Of course FFs gave us positive outcomes (mainly a huge increase in population, if you consider that positive), but times have changed.

            Change with the times, PhilBest, or perish!

          • I think the real fruit-loops are the people who believe that human CO2 emissions are causing climate “catastrophe”. Climate has changed for millennia and it is a natural and chaotic process.

            I am dismayed that MB as a forum is so unskeptical.

            Note that I did not think that the greenhouse effect is untrue or that atmospheric CO2 is not increasing. It is unhelpful to have people who are skeptics – which is scientifically necessary – portrayed as “deniers” of the whole “science”.

            “…..Though you wouldn’t know it from the antagonistic nature of public discussions about global warming, a large measure of scientific agreement and shared interpretation exists amongst nearly all scientists who consider the issue. The common ground, much of which was traversed by Dr. Hayhoe in her article, includes:
            • that climate has always changed and always will,
            • that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere,
            • that human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere,
            • that a global warming of around 0.5OC occurred in the 20th century, but
            • that global warming has ceased over the last 15 years.
            The scientific argument over DAGW is therefore about none of these things. Rather, it is almost entirely about three other, albeit related, issues. They are:
            • the amount of net warming that is, or will be, produced by human-related emissions,
            • whether any actual evidence exists for dangerous warming of human causation over the last 50 years, and
            • whether the IPCC’s computer models can provide accurate climate predictions 100 years into the future.
            Dr. Hayhoe’s answers to those questions would probably be along the line of: substantial, lots and yes. My answers would be: insignificant, none, and no…..”

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/

          • I think the real fruit-loops are the people who believe that human CO2 emissions are causing climate “catastrophe”. Climate has changed for millennia and it is a natural and chaotic process.

            Uh, these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive…

            It is unhelpful to have people who are skeptics – which is scientifically necessary – portrayed as “deniers” of the whole “science”.

            Wow, seriously ? This from the guy who seems to blame everything from overpriced housing to his dog’s bad breath on “socialists” and says anyone with an environmentalist bent is trying to “destroy the western civilisation they hate” ?

  6. I find renewable’s and grid power storage are fascinating new product areas, the cost of PV sourced electricity is now under $0.10/Kwh that’s 1/3 the cost of daytime electricity provided in country NSW. The cost for electricity battery storage looks like it has also fallen below $0.20/kwh cycle. Combining these two facts creates lots of room for innovative residential power solutions.

    Interestingly the latest IPART report has recommended FIT (fed-in-tariffs) of 6 to 8 c/kwh, (and you think the bureaucrats are not interfering in the market value of grid connected renewable power solutions). This FIT is down from the equally ridiculous $0.60/kwh paid less than 2 years ago.

    This all has me wondering to what extent the local residential electricity grid monopoly is a legislated monopoly. If there is nothing to prevent alternate parallel networks developing than we could see some very interesting times ahead for the Australian residential electricity market.

    • $0.30/kWh in country NSW is the retail price of electricity which cover the wholesale cost, transmission and distribution losses, retail cost and margin and the network component. The feed-in tariff is what households get paid for selling solar back to the grid – and is based on the avoided cost (wholesale and trans/dist losses), but purposely makes no effort to pay households a fee network. The major benefit you get for installing solar is avoiding paying the $0.30/Kwh when you consume energy you produce rather than buying from the grid, not selling excess energy back to the grid at $0.06-0.08/kWh under the fee-in tariff.

      • All true Stormy, but is it relevant?

        Additionally the $0.33/Kwh does not include the Connection fee (about $1.40/day) include this fee averaged over the power used plus GST, and you get retail power costs of about $0.45 to $0.55/Kwh.

        Now consider if I could share my excess electricity with my immediate neighbor, say by throwing an extension lead over the fence. I would get more than 8c and they would pay me less than 33c/kwh. Win-win situation except for the wire owner/operator.

        A more advanced system could be developed to formalize this “over the fence” arrangement and independently interconnect local houses with net meters so they could make a few cents/kwh for providing a very cheap alternative to exporting for the 8c FIT.

        The alternative is on site residential electricity battery storage. I charge the batteries during he day at a cot of 10c/kwh and discharge them in the evening for a total cycle cost of 30c/kwh.

        Sorry but the economics of the BIG state-wide / national grid just dont cut it anymore. Technology is creating alternatives which WILL constrain future profit in the electricity grid sector.

        • I think it’s relevant. You weren’t comparing apples to apples. The feed in tariff is based on the costs that are avoided if someone produces electricity rather than consuming it given their point in the network and are broadly the same as the prices that big generators receive for selling energy into the grid.

          The development path you outline in your second post is a possible long term future for electricity markets. And if people want to use onsite power/storage systems then nothing is stopping them. But don’t for a second think that your system of running a wire “over the fence” is costless or simple. Your example of two people who can costlessly transfer power between each other and share the avoided network costs (most of the difference between the $0.08/kWh and the $0.30kWh) is oversimplified. It’s like saying that two people with walkie talkies can communicate off the mobile network for free therefore why don’t we just give everyone walkie talkies and stop paying telstra/optus/voda any money.

          • It’s like saying that two people with walkie talkies can communicate off the mobile network for free

            I’ve thought of that one too. Imagine if mobile phones talked directly to each other, and could relay messages.

          • This multi-hop wireless communications process (relaying) is an active area of research that promises much (many,many potential applications) and presents significant and unique challenges.

            It is a good idea.

        • Now consider if I could share my excess electricity with my immediate neighbor, say by throwing an extension lead over the fence.

          A true smart-meter would support this kind of activity.

          I also wonder if 240VAC is ideal for sharing. Perhaps DC would be better.

          • “A true smart-meter would support this kind of activity”

            Very true but unlikely because vested interests want to extract money from the system for the available capacity they provide.

            If the local grid within a town were owned by the local community than it should be possible for me to sell to my immediate neighbors without constructing an independent wire network. The wire is already present.

            Stormy’s argument that system losses etc must be paid for is also bogus because the Low voltage section of grid cannot ever work backwards (not with existing technology because of anti-islanding rules)so any power that I generate with Solar is always consumed by my immediate neighbors, and therefore they present a reduced load to the MV side of the network which reduces losses.

  7. Wind is definitely getting cheaper. The quoted figure of around $80/MWh LRMC at a good site is about right. However, at today’s ~$20/t carbon price and even using netback parity price for coal and gas the LRMC of a new coal plant is around $80/MWh (on par with wind today) but new CCGT gas is more like $67/MWh. The article numbers for coal/gas plant are waaaay off.

    So if the carbon tax, gas and coal prices stay the same then new wind will remain on par with new coal and gas will beat them both. Of course the carbon price is likely to fall from FY16 when we will be pricing off Europe’s scheme (currently <$10/t) so I wouldn't get too excited just yet.

    Furthermore, the only reason anyone is building anything is due to the renewable energy target – wind is getting built due to the subsidy under that scheme. In it's absence there would be no investment as demand is soft at the moment and for the next few years and prices are low. Market prices at the moment are around $60/MWh, substantially less than the LRMC of any technology (which is why generators are going broke).

    Finally, whilst new wind is on an equal footing with new coal and may become competitive with new gas under the right long term conditions there is the small matter of approximately 25,000 MW of installed coal-fired power stations across the country that have already sunk their considerable fixed costs.

    It's going to be a long time before new wind is cheaper than continuing to run existing coal stations. But no one said turnover our power system to low emissions tech would happen overnight.

    • “but new CCGT gas is more like $67/MWh.”

      1) At what Gas price per Gigajoule?
      2) Do you expect this gas price to continue given the current Japanese prices for imported CNG?

      • The $67/MWh LRMC for new CCGT gas stations is based on a $5/GJ delivered to the station gas price.

        These prices are likely to rise over time as we start exporting LNG but Australia has a lot of gas. I’d be surprised if new entrant wind stations ended up cheaper than new entrant gas stations this decade unless carbon went north of $50/t and/or gas got above $10/GJ domestically (in nominal terms) both of which I think are very unlikely. Europe is struggling to set a carbon price greater than $10/t and the US is getting closer and closer to exporting shale gas as LNG into pacific markets.

        The bigger issue for Oz power is that we don’t need to build any new stations this decade regardless of the cost. So there’s no real opportunity for the carbon price to change investment in any case. In electricity the carbon price is mostly causing big wealth transfers rather than changes to production/investment and that’s likely to be the case for at least the next 10 years.

        • Most of the cost of gas is really the cost of building the pipeline to supply it. If you can build your power station where the gas is, and it is close to existing transmission lines, the cost is much less.

          • Yes and no. Extracting and processing it pre-transport it is not costless, especially for CSM or gas with lots of moisture. Also, if you own the gas it surely makes more sense to sell it at opportunity cost rather than burn it as if it’s worth nothing just because there’s a power station next door.

            Plus with gas (and coal/wind) there’s an inherent tradeoff between locating near fuel to minimise fuel costs (or near better wind sites) and locating near transmission infrastructure to minimise connection costs.

            I do agree that there are undoubtedly benefits to co-locating power generation with fuel source.

        • Thanks Stormy.
          Your gas prices assumptions seem reasonable, for the time being. The big difference with PV/wind vs Gas/Coal is that the cost curve keeps decreasing for the renewables and increasing for the fossil fuels. So we might not be at the crossover point just yet but it is not far away from cross over.

          When we reach crossover the sunk costs of the existing Coal stations becomes irrelevant and only their variable operating costs matter, this unfortunately results in no one building any capacity Wind/Gas or Solar capacity until Coal power stations reach their natural end of life. (which is over 25 years…)

          I still think a lot of today’s monopoly pricing power within the residential / small business commercial electricity market will disappear within the next 10 year. On site battery storage and local PV will make huge inroads and create in an upper bound for electricity prices.

          It will be very interesting to see if new rules&regs continue to favor the entrenched providers.

          • I have always regarded “renewable” energy as a far better fit for “on site” generation.

            Eg rooftop wind turbines and solar panels. Imagine the prices coming down like mobile phones and appliances. There is nothing like the same potential for great “farms” of generation connected to the national grid.

            Of course there are energy industry vested interests that badly do not want a revolution in such things.

          • China-Bob,
            The only reason the cost curve is increasing for fossil fuels is the government policies forcing the costs up. This is adding huge costs to society, this is not something positive it is a terrible price to pay for taking action against climate change. Current pool prices for electricity are around the $40 mark and have been for longer than I can remember. We seem to be celebrating the fact our government has succeeded in doubling the cost of our most important resource?

            StormyWaters – there isn’t a retailer in Australia who wouldn’t write you a PPA for 10 years at $80. Why the lack of wind farms being built? Bunkum.

          • @WRAL
            Not true IMHO. Residential electricity prices in NSW have been far more impacted by IPART’s willingness to sign-off on whatever “upgrades” the transmission / distributions companies want to make. So called “gold platting” look at this last report showing the cost breakdown in residential electricity to see where the money is going.

            Unfortunately at the moment we are playing monopoly so until the end user has economic viable choices to grid connection, the grid monopolies can and WILL raise prices.

            The whole Carbon pricing thing is only a distraction, but alas one that is helping to drag us over the break-even line for urban residential off-grid deployment.

            If off-grid really takes off the flow through consequences for the electricity distribution monopolies will financially cripple them. I expect interesting legislation to cement in place their existing monopolies, the real interesting thing will be to see which politicians vote for and against this monopoly.

    • The article numbers for coal/gas plant are waaaay off

      But not in the way you think. If the externalised costs to the climate (and in the US, the cost of resource wars) were factored in, renewables are way, waaaaay cheaper.

    • I don’t want to spoil “environment friendly” party but MWh from new highly efficient IGCC base load coal power plants is likely to be below $50 after carbon tax.
      Price of MWh from new wind in Australia is on average above $100 and if we include price of new transmission system needed to get power from these good location it’s likely to be over $130 per MWh. Because of its mechanical nature cost of wind energy is likely to increase with new capacity installations because good location are far from load and materials are getting more expensive. Nature of the wind turbines almost guaranty no technological breakthrough at any point of time.

      There is no way, wind energy will ever be even close to cost of coal energy in this country even if carbon tax increases couple of times.

      The only promising technology is solar. Price of solar cells is falling almost 50% per year and with efficiency and material improvements will soon be the cheapest (it already is in countries where trade labour cost is reasonable).

      The only current issue with solar is storage, that problem is not technical because solutions exist. It will take time before “environmentalists” agree that flooding couple of valleys for pump storage is by far better option than waiting for solution that might never exit.

      • I don’t have access to definitive numbers for Australian wind power (do you have a source)?

        Meanwhile, it’s going well elsewhere, eg

        One of the world’s largest offshore wind farms off the east Kent coast is on target to become fully operational in the spring. London Array is being built in the Thames Estuary, 10 miles north of Ramsgate, and will produce enough power for an estimated 470,000 homes.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20846600

        • At least the UK have a lot of wind farms offshore, away from population centres. There is increasing opposition to wind farms in Australia, as although they tend to be sited in rural areas, many people living nearby claim the quality of their lives has been adversely affected by noises and vibrations. There is also an issue siting wind farms in bush fire risk areas as they restrict the access of water bombing planes and helicopters. Hopefully Australia won’t rush to build wind farms en-masse in unsuitable (cheaper) areas without thinking through all the consequences. There is surely enough land in Australia to be able to site them away from people.

    • An interview with Michael Mann

      The rhetoric is becoming louder and more acerbic, the attacks are becoming more fierce. They’re not just attacking the science of climate change, they—for example the Koch brothers–are funding attacks against clean energy, against wind, against solar energy.

        • The Koch brothers are saints

          Wow, that tells me all I ever need to know about you, PhilBest! The Koch Brothers are miscreants and mass murderers who have spent millions funding denialism while AGW destroys the lives of millions, and eventually billions.

          • “……miscreants and mass murderers who have spent millions funding denialism while AGW destroys the lives of millions, and eventually billions……”

            Oh come ON, that is the real raving loony nonsense in this debate.

            I say thank goodness some brave guys spend a few million dollars trying to get the message out against the billions being spent pushing the CAGW bandwagon. Much of it is taxpayer dollars, but the Rockefellers and George Soros and Goldman Sachs et al are right behind it too. The Kochs are “freedom of speech” minnows.

  8. Jumping jack flash

    I have not much an opinion either way but so long as electricity becomes cheaper that’s all I care about.

    Oh and birds. I like birds. Sometimes they are known to get in the way of those blades.. nasty stuff.

    And I hope we buy the wind towers that can stand up in the wind unlike that one recently in the UK. I’m sure that was an isolated incident though.

    Solar is great except we don’t make the panels. I wish we could but we are just no good at making stuff. Also making solar panels is fairly messy and requires a lot of energy, possibly oil as plastics. Etc.

  9. Wind farms will be producing energy at a cost of $80 to $113 a MW/h… but will still have to add the extra costs with subsidies, right?!
    The production of Wind energy is very unstable, most of the times produces an average of 30% of the total power capacity installed… and very often the picks and the highest levels of production occurs at night when the consumption is way more lower.
    We still have to consider the background infrastructures that will have to be build, to supply when this production is lower, that will use mainly coal or/and natural gas, there it goes for the environment strategy…
    Wind energy is an expensive and an obsolete technology, European countries betted on this solution, look where they’re now.
    The future rise of energy costs will press down the economy, and trust me this energy doesn’t create jobs..
    The current level of maturity of the technology of Photovoltaic panels are not part of solution either, because of it’s low efficiency (10-15%).

  10. If there’s one thing that REALLY scares the bejesus out of the fossil fuel lobby and that’s the possibility that clean energy might actually be cost competitive with fossil energy.

    The comments above are very revealing.

    • I agree with you there. My main problem is with Green doomsayers who want us to shut down the global economy pronto pronto because fossil fuels are cooking the planet, yadda, yadda, yadda; and technology “will NOT save us”.

      I have always found the great systems analyst Jesse Ausubel’s “natural free market decarbonisation of the global economy” hypothesis convincing.

      • I agree with you there. My main problem is with Green doomsayers who want us to shut down the global economy pronto pronto because fossil fuels are cooking the planet, yadda, yadda, yadda; and technology “will NOT save us”.

        Could you maybe provide some links to the people saying this ?

        • Oh come on, what planet do you live on?

          This sort of thing is all over the place:

          http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/17/spain.climate/

          “…..Scientists say up to an 85 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions is needed to head off potential catastrophic changes that could lead to more floods and famine……”

          Up to an 85% cut……!!!!

          And we’re not talking about collapsing the global economy?

          • And we’re not talking about collapsing the global economy?

            Scientists are saying an 85% cut in CO2 emissions are required to avoid “potential catastrophic changes”.

            *You* are, with typical dishonesty, presenting that as “scientists want to collapse the global economy”.

            Your only apparently argument against them is, for all intents and purposes, saying “god will save us”.

          • I am saying that there is no way the IPCC Reports, in the main body and the comments by reviewers, can remotely be taken to justify the “85%” statement; and furthermore it is absurd to deny that an urgent 85% reduction in CO2 emissions means “collapsing the global economy”.

            I am being kind here. An urgent need for an 85% reduction in CO2 emissions to “save humanity”, period, is the kind of thing that totalitarian regimes of the 20th century would have loved to have their minions believing in as a basis for mass murder. No-one talking about giving up cars and air conditioning and a few other “luxuries” on the margin, on the basis of the 85% “NEED”, is remotely credible.

            Seriously; you think emissions can be cut 85% on a short time scale, by replacing coal with wind farms, changing from cars to trains, from houses to apartment blocks, and stuff like that? It is also noticeable that most Greenies are also soft leftists who cannot countenance any cutbacks in welfare, free healthcare, free state education, bureaucracies, etc – as if they think a massive CO2 emissions reduction program will not require massive sacrifices in all post-industrial-revolution niceties.

            Many of them also seem to envisage a wonderful low-carbon-footprint future where we all live in apartment blocks and catch trains to bureaucratic jobs in office blocks. As if the creation of wealth via messy utilisation of land and resources is not necessary before any of it can be “consumed” in government spending – or in retail spending or spending on “services” and the many other things that now comprise the vast majority of GDP. The actual wealth creating sector has become so efficient and so small a percentage of the whole economy, that we have forgotten it is how we pay for everything else.

          • OK Phil, I give in….you win, all people with any concerns for the environment are leftist Commies (having lived in the DDR and the PRC I probably am) with anti social tendencies, heck they probably even wet their beds.

            I get it, I get it, I get it!

          • I am saying that there is no way the IPCC Reports, in the main body and the comments by reviewers, can remotely be taken to justify the “85%” statement; and furthermore it is absurd to deny that an urgent 85% reduction in CO2 emissions means “collapsing the global economy”.

            No, you are quite explicitly saying that “environmentalists” want to “destroy western civilisation”

            You are also conflating the need to reduce CO2 emissions with “collapsing the global economy”.

            I am being kind here. An urgent need for an 85% reduction in CO2 emissions to “save humanity”, period, is the kind of thing that totalitarian regimes of the 20th century would have loved to have their minions believing in as a basis for mass murder. No-one talking about giving up cars and air conditioning and a few other “luxuries” on the margin, on the basis of the 85% “NEED”, is remotely credible.

            Because… What, exactly ? Because the good lord gave us the capability to make the most inhospitable parts of the planet livable, and there’s no way he would have done that if it wasn’t possible for it to be sustainable forever and always ?

            Seriously; you think emissions can be cut 85% on a short time scale, by replacing coal with wind farms, changing from cars to trains, from houses to apartment blocks, and stuff like that?

            No, but this is both a) a straw man argument and b) an entirely and completely separate issue as to whether or not emissions _need_ to be cut.

            Let me be less subtle. You are basically arguing: “because we cannot do this without significant constraints to lifestyle, obviously the people saying we need to do it really just want us to impose significant constraints to lifestyle, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment”. On top of that, you are arguing “because we cannot do this without significant constraints to lifestyle, there is no need to do that, because god the planet will always provide everything we ever need, forever and always, regardless of what that is”.

            That is to say, a grand conspiracy theory (and a logical fallacy), combined with cornucopian fantasy.

            What’s particularly telling, is that while you’re quite happy to argue infinite physical resources can be conjoured out of nothingness at a whim, I’d bet even money you’d argue the idea of simply printing money to meet expenses was one of the greatest sins that could be committed.

            It is also noticeable that most Greenies are also soft leftists who cannot countenance any cutbacks in welfare, free healthcare, free state education, bureaucracies, etc – as if they think a massive CO2 emissions reduction program will not require massive sacrifices in all post-industrial-revolution niceties.

            Indeed. Most “greenies” think it more moral to cut back the luxuries of the wealthy before the needs of the poor. Truly they are monsters.

            Many of them also seem to envisage a wonderful low-carbon-footprint future where we all live in apartment blocks and catch trains to bureaucratic jobs in office blocks. As if the creation of wealth via messy utilisation of land and resources is not necessary before any of it can be “consumed” in government spending – or in retail spending or spending on “services” and the many other things that now comprise the vast majority of GDP.

            This is a laughable misrepresentation. Indeed, most “greenies” I know, would rather people be living on their own plots of land, growing their own food, “living in harmony with nature”.

  11. When I started my career in the energy industry the proponents of green energy were the passionate, unpaid genuine believers in the problems they believed the world faced.
    Now the situation is very different, the clean energy industry is a well organised, well funded, big business, capital intensive propaganda machine. The sole intention of the industry is to profit from government subsidies, to extract rent from society by arguing it is in the interests of society for society to be sculpted into a different consumption model, a more expensive and inevitably lower growth model. I make no comment on whether that need is there or not.
    However, it is vitally important we remember that this is not a battle between the forces of good business and bad business, light and dark. These industries are both here to make money and the clean energy industry wants government to forcibly expropriate it from us and hand it over to them. Whether you believe this is a necessary development or not, you cannot argue with that fact.

    • Now the situation is very different, the clean energy industry is a well organised, well funded, big business, capital intensive propaganda machine.

      Unlike the FF industry (the largest, most profitable industry in the world) 🙄

      God, what rubbish!

  12. I’ve just realised, from this blog entry, that the majority of posters here are working for industry (mining and/or energy), or have a big share allocation in those sectors, or are conservatives pushing an ideological rather than scientific barrel. Or all three. Or worse, this is a paid campaign ❗

    All in all, it’s very disappointing to find most posters scoffing at science and quoting the lunatic denialist fringe (Watts, Delingpole, Nova etc) and supporting some of the world’s worst polluters (the Koch brothers).

    I ask the owners of this blog to consider that they may be the target of a concerted, organised astroturfing effort. As one of the only independent voice in Australian media, you are a natural target, so this is not entirely surprising.

    • Welcome to the Real World R2M. A world where there is a variety of opinion – unlike slavish forums devoted to one topic and filled with single issue zealots.

        • Do you HONESTLY believe the biggest money is being spent on CAGW skepticism (it is NOT “denial”), not alarmism?

          The CAGW alarmism sector shows alarming tendencies to totalitarianism and always has done. “The time for debate is over”. (We never HAD one !!!!). Sack the journal editors, defund the departments, fail the thesis students, push senior scientists into early retirement, etc etc who dare to question the orthodoxy.

          Even after a “Climategate” and a “Climategate II”, these people have no shame.

          • Yes, I definitely do think the biggest money is coming from the “merchants of doubt” and their backers. Read the book (not that I believe you will — your post is replete with phrases like “alarmism”, “climategate” that denote a dyed-in-the-wool denier).

    • Take your bizarre conspiracy theories elsewhere. They don’t belong here. If you have a substantive comment on the subject, make it. If you disagree with what another commenter says, say so and give your reasons. Speculation on people’s motives is ridiculous.

      • Couldn’t agree more! The people live anxious to found and dismantle conspiracy theories without searching and developing solid and fundamental conceptions…
        Wind farms won’t save the world and will neither be the major solution to produce energy in the future, as I mentioned early on this type of technology is very unstable because there isn’t strong wind all the time. For example it couldn’t be possible to implement sufficient and viable wind farms to produce the energy to supply the minimum consumption during all days of the year… it whether produce 5% up to 80% of the total power capacity installed.
        Common solar panels are made from Silicon, which doesn’t allow to capture radiation from the whole spectrum, and currently there are developments to use a different component system to increase the scope… until then is just wasted money.

        These companies that will produce energy from wind are only interested in obtaining profit from you, claiming that is for our common interest, and for those who don’t believe you’ll see about that in a couple of years when your electricity bill rise up quickly… in the UK they’re already facing it.

      • Yes, I have been accused of going OTT in one direction, by people who are very clearly OTT in the other…….

        I simply recommend everyone read “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” by Patrick Moore, and “The Rational Optimist” by Matt Ridley.

        I like Jo Nova, James Delingpole, and Donna LaFramboise but I realise that they might be too much for true believers; a bit like trying to introduce a Jesuit straight to Richard Dawkins rather than breaking him in gently via Martin Luther first.

        What does Revert2Mean want us to read? No-one of the calibre of Moore or Ridley, on the other side of the argument, is going to be over the fringe and calling the fossil fuel industry “mass murderers”.

        On the contrary, fossil fuels have been the means of billions more humans living much longer lives. Is it this that Green fundamentalists REALLY object to?

        • Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger are “good” environmentalists in my opinion. Even if I still think they are wrong, they are not hypocritical, contradictory, inconsistent, useful idiots for vested interests, and/or incapable of counting blessings in human/technological progress to date.

          And for this, they, and Moore, and Lomborg, and Monbiot, and Lovelock, and Cockburn, and anyone else who steps out of line with the approved dogma on the Green Left (no nukes, no hydro, no fracking, no aquaculture, no forestry, no “automobility”, etc) get “excommunicated” just as surely as a Catholic who questions Papal infallibility.

  13. As a general comment:
    I understand that solar panels get 1% – 2% more efficient each year (than the previous model) and price falls each year too.
    As a result solar panels are being put to greater use each year. I remember when they were only good to power a wrist watch. One day they might power my car.

  14. The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state.
    —Kenneth Boulding, originator of the “Spaceship Earth” concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

    We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!
    —Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).

    Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…. Capitalism is destroying the earth.
    —Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

    We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects…. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.
    —David Foreman, Earth First!

    Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.
    —Pentti Linkola

    If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.
    —Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth–Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22

    The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.
    —John Shuttleworth

    What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
    —Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

    I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
    —John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

    Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
    —John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

    The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.
    —Economist editorial

    We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.
    —David Foreman, Earth First!

    Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
    —Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

    If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS
    —Earth First! Newsletter

    Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
    —David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

    The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.
    —Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

    If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
    —Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

    Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”
    —Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995 Poverty For “Those People”

    We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.
    —Carl Amery

    • Please please please PhilBest – don’t confuse *prescriptive* nonsense like the above with *descriptive* environmental writings from scientists.

      Peak oil & climate change have real scientific consensus behind them.

      And evidence does seem to confirm that limits to growth models were more more correct than wrong.

      • CyrusP; I find the BODY of IPCC Reports very interesting, and even more so, the contributions of actual scientists that might have ended up left out. Not that I have time to read much of the reams of techo stuff. Interesting points are made by some experts who are part of the process.

        I agree there is a huge disconnect between the mainstream of science, and the sound bites that young people get bombarded with. This is a problem for the “alarmists” to sort out, not the skeptics. Until the alarmists back off and stop propagandising the kids with science fiction, they need to have the fight taken to them.

        The First Draft of the latest IPCC Report has been leaked, and apparently it is full of expressions of uncertainty from the scientists. Somewhere between now and the release of the “summary for policy makers” on the part of the UN politicrats, it will turn into “absolute certainty” that CAGW demands massive painful policy prescriptions NOW.

        After all, they know their climate models have constantly overstated future temperature rises, and every time an IPCC report comes out, they have had to re-do the models to account for having been so wrong on the time scale of the previous decade or so.

        And what “limit to growth” model has yet been proved right? Mankind does seem to keep performing Houdini-like escapes from the limits, with new technology and new discoveries. Call me a Cornucopian if you like, but I see the Houdini-like escapes as the norm, not the aberration. People like me have tended to be the ones who die happy, rather than sorry we didn’t live long enough to see our predictions of gloom come to pass.

        • “And what “limit to growth” model has yet been proved right?”

          http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5330

          “Charles A. S. Hall and John W. Day revisit these predictions in an article published this month in American Scientist called Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil. Their analysis indicates that the predictions from 1972 were surprisingly accurate, considering how long ago they were made”

          Peak Oil forecasts are themselves Limits to Growth forecasts. Peak oil occured in the US in 1970 – just as forecasted by geologist M King Hubbert. Incidentally that is also the year that real median incomes per person in the US peaked – coincidence?

    • By trying to present radical and extremist views as somehow “mainstream”, you have sacrificed any shred of credibility you might have had on this topic.

      This from the guy accusing others of being “alarmist”. You’re just a hypocrite. You could at least try and maintain even an illusion of intellectual integrity.

      • Nordhaus and Shellenberger rail against the extremist and prevalent element of the environmental movement – they correctly see claims such as those detailed by Phil B above to be detrimental to true progress on ecological matters. They rail against the Malthusian prophecies, rubbery science and armageddon-like predictions of climate change.

        Have you ever read anything from a green group or Karoly or the like? The statements listed above are not too far off.

        The vid is worth the time.

        • Have you ever read anything from a green group or Karoly or the like? The statements listed above are not too far off.

          Quote some.

        • Nordhaus and Shellenberger do not rail against “rubbery science”. Not once do they question the validity of climate science.

          This is problem with you MineBot. I offer an olive branch and you twist it and distort it to your own ends.

          • Sure, but what Nordhaus and Shellenberger accept as “climate science”, is NOT the “gospel according to St Al of the Ecopalypse”, which just happens to be what most casual watchers, and especially the young at school, are led to believe IS “climate science”.

            “Climate science” has for decades now been consistently massaged in one direction, between the scientists at the pitface, and the general public. The skeptics (not “deniers”) have a lot of justifiable redressing to do at the level of the public. Many of them are actual IPCC expert reviewers who are appalled at the public political distortion of their work. Then the alarmists liken them to Jew-genociders…..!

            Marc Morano, “Climate Denier of the Year” for 2012, is guilty of assembling and maintaining a database of THIS nature:

            http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

            Quick, lynch him……! What a crime against humanity…!!!!

          • Lorax, they specifically mentioned the issue when the results don’t fit the narrative, adjusting parameters (data) until they do.

  15. Mods, Can you please move the informative posts from Stormy Waters & China-Bob to the top of the comment thread?

    Or better still, delete everything else? 😉

  16. Mmmmm.. but India and China are heading toward nuclear safe thorium…wind will never replace it.