OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER, AND TO THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION.

We are a group of retired scientists and engineers in Queensland, and we are alarmed at the direction our country is being taken through your respective policies, which are virtually identical, on renewable energy. Our names are listed here. We have studied this issue for years now, and we have here outlined the serious defects in your energy policy, and asked some questions which have thus far remained unanswered.

Energy Policy. By far the greatest risk to Australia’s electricity supply is the false belief that renewables (wind and solar) can be a like-for-like replacement for dispatchable fossil fuelled generators. They are not, and can never be. A one-MW wind or solar plant does not replace a one-MW coal plant. Not even close. Solar plants will produce electricity on average at 20% of their installed capacity. They produce power for little more than eight hours per day and none at all at night or on rainy days. Wind plants can be expected to produce electricity on average 25% to 30% of installed capacity, but output can be as little as 2% or as much as 70% with little warning.

Media reports in June this year referred to a “wind drought” across Southern Australia resulting in wind production being “40% below the previous corresponding period”. This is a problem but masks an even more intractable false belief; that an energy grid can run on averages. It can’t, because energy consumed has to be generated in real time. Just one example of that wind drought: at 2.20 PM on 5 th May this year, all the wind farms in Australia (4400 MW installed capacity in WA, SA, Vic, Tas and NSW) were producing just 121MW. (That’s 4400 MW capacity generating only 121MW). In fact for May and June this year this was not uncommon. Large high pressure systems over southern Australia meant little or no wind for weeks at a time.

The grid has to meet demand every minute of every day. AEMO can and does order fossil fuelled plants to produce electricity. Clearly it cannot do so for wind or solar. Just imagine Australia with a largely renewable energy system — it is night time so no solar power is being generated, and the whole of Southern Australia is dominated by high pressure systems (this is not unusual) and wind is producing at only 2% of installed capacity! To date dispatchable fossil fuelled generators have been able to shoulder the load but as dispatchable capacity is retired this may no longer be possible, with disastrous consequences.

On the face of it the answer is storage, either battery, pumped hydro or molten salt. This brings us to the next false belief; that storage is some sort of magic pudding. The capacity of current storage technologies is miniscule compared with daily demand. Australian grid demand varies between 18,000 MW minimum and 30,000 MW maximum. Over 24 hours this works out to about 600,000 MWh per day. The Tesla battery being installed in South Australia is said to be the world’s largest and to hold 129 MWh fully charged. This may be enough to support the local grid for a short time until dispatchable capacity can be started, but an unimaginable number of Tesla batteries would be necessary to maintain grid supply for a day or a week, or even longer in the worst case.
(more…)

4 June 2017

Re: Withdrawal from the 2015 UN Climate Change Agreement.

I write to you as an LNP Member. The announcement that President Trump will withdraw from the 2015 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is wonderful news because it shows that in the face of huge vested interests he has had the courage to challenge the hoax that the minute traces of human produced carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are causing disastrous Climate Change.

Australia should also withdraw.

The objectives of the UN’s Climate Change Policies have never been about Climate.

• Destroy Industrialisation. The first objective was to destroy the world’s industrialisation as advocated by Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The Greens are well on the way to achieving this in South Australia and Victoria.
• Follow the Money Trail. The second objective was a means for a Global Transfer of Wealth. Ottman Edenhofer, a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in 2010, “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Under the terms of the Climate Change Policy, the UN is seeking US$100 billion per year from Developed Countries for a Green Climate Fund to “help developing countries fight climate change”. In 2015, there were some 136 Developing Countries listed and only 51 Developed Countries so the affirmative vote for the UN’s Climate Policy was a foregone conclusion.

Many advocates of the Climate Policies have been wilfully opportunistic and avaricious,Skin problems but many have believed in it because they have not understood the essential and benign role of CO2 in Nature.

President Trump, a major figure on the world political stage, has now had the courage to call the bluff of the Leftist Green Warmists who claim that CO2 is harmful.

I would suggest that you join with other Conservative Politicians to strongly urge the Prime Minister to cancel all Renewable Energy Targets and Subsidies.

If our Government fails to do this, we will not only be politically out of step with the USA, we will be condemned to a future of expensive and unreliable electricity, higher costs of living, diminished living standards and an exodus of industries to countries with cheaper power.

Regards

Robert J Brock

James Lovelock has written a letter of objection regarding a wind-farm development in Devon. The final paragraph of his letter reads:

“I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.”

Source: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/1/25/lovelock-recants.html

Bryan Leyland of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition has explained the problem as neatly as I have ever seen:

“Carbon trading is the only commodity trading where it is impossible to establish with reasonable accuracy how much is being bought and sold, where the commodity that is traded is invisible and can perform no useful purpose for the purchaser, and where both parties benefit if the quantities traded have been exaggerated… it is therefore an open invitation to fraud and that is exactly what is happening all over the world.”

If the world were heating in lock step with the CO2 content of the air, I would be concerned. However, as if to emphasise the variability, Lord Turnbull, in the UK Financial Times of 31/1/13 mentioned that Arctic ice coverage is now back almost exactly to where it was in January 2007. This follows the late Theodor Landscheidt’s predictions which so often proved to be accurate and it looks as though we should be preparing for his 2030 Little Ice Age rather than feeding crooks in the pretext of saving the planet for our grandchildren.

Robert Brooks ASTC, FAusIMM, CPMin, MIEAust, CPEng, NM.
Geraldton WA 6530.

Summer in Indiana:

Some call this global warming; in Indiana we call this summer.

Marty Irwin

Meanwhile in Death Valley in 1913:

1913 Death Valley, California hit 134 °F (~56.7 °C), the highest temperature yet recorded in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_National_Park

If it’s hot – that’s dangerous global warming.

If it’s cold – that just weather.

When there was deep snow over all the UK, record cold in Europe and Russia, and blizzards in the USA last winter, we were told “That’s not climate, that’s weather!”

Now after a 15 year period of flat or declining global temperatures, when we get a hot spell we are told “That’s not weather, that’s climate!”.

I’m not buying it, guys.

As for the heatwave and fires in Colorado, that is just bad weather and poor forest management. The wildfires are helped by a policy of not back-burning the forests to reduce fuel loadings, and by the idiocy of building housing among the trees without fire breaks between the two.

Don’t try to lay the blame for this on harmless, beneficial to plants, non-pollutant carbon dioxide.

If Rio didn’t give you the message then you are blind – Rio was the funeral rite for the busted hypothesis that was called anthropogenic global warming. Your theory is flawed, your cause is lost, and your god is dead: global warming is now a religion, not science. The IPCC computer models are known to have zero predictive power: nothing they predicted has come to pass. Temperatures are not rising, nor are the seas.

Your prophet Al Gore has led you to a desert of failed ideologies. You may fool the politicians for a few more budgets, but the common people are on to you.

My advice: Jump from this bandwagon before it plummets off the cliff!

Allen Horrell

I recently received a letter in the mail with this message printed across the bottom in big black letters:

”CARBON IS A BUILDING BLOCK OF LIFE! NOT A POLLUTANT”

Naturally I opened it with interest. The letter inside read:

Dear Viv Forbes and the Carbon Sense People,

Thank God the Australian public is slowly wising up to the almost laughable premise of global warming and carbon ‘pollution’.

I tell anyone who will listen that ice ages and periods of melt are cyclic. How did the aboriginals reach Tasmania? They walked. They certainly didn’t take a ferry! Sea levels were low then. Anyone trying to stop sea levels from rising will have about as much success as King Canute.

All my correspondence will go out with this, or a similar message on the envelope:

“CARBON IS A BUILDING BLOCK OF LIFE! NOT A POLLUTANT”

This may be a way to get the facts out to a few more people.

I read all your emails with a great deal of interest.

Sincerely yours,
A.B.
Forest Lake, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.

Lord Christopher Monckton is currently touring Australia, speaking on the politics, science and economics of the Great Global Warming Swindle. The Broncos Leagues Club in Brisbane had agreed to book a room for the Brisbane function.

However Green Extremists mounted an organised campaign of protest to the club and the Brave Broncos buckled to the censors.

Would all supporters please advise members and visitors that Broncos Leagues club has a new policy to only admit those who believe in the Man Made Global Warming Fable. We are not sure whether or not visitors will be asked their views before allowing entry. We presume so.

Please advise your friends in case other skeptics are turned away and embarrassed.

Skeptics and Freedom lovers all over the world have been outraged by this action. The letter below is typical. More letters are encouraged.

Viv Forbes

From: Paul Driessen
Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2011 1:30 AM
To: info@broncosleagues.com.au
Subject: Lord Monckton

I truly cannot believe that you have reneged on your agreement to Host Lord Christopher Monckton for a stimulating discussion of climate science, economics and politics. The Broncos, Brisbane and Australia are much the poorer for your having done so.

I have heard Christopher speak on many occasions and have had the good fortune to join him and his delightful, engaging wife Juliet for several dinners and other events. He is a brilliant analyst and a fantastic commentator, speaker and debater, who never fails to bring his audiences to their feet. Unlike Al Gore and certain others, Christopher always responds (politely and directly) to any question he is asked; he never screens questions ahead of time, and absolutely never refuses to take questions. Juliet is as warm, friendly and fascinating a conversationalist as you could hope to find.

Shame on you for having disappointed so many – and having apparently caved in to the dark forces of political correctitude.

I hope you will reconsider your rash decision.

Sincerely,

Paul Driessen
Fairfax, Virginia
USA

Minister Combet’s announcement that they are going to compensate working families for the cost of carbon tax should confirm one thing; a carbon tax is going to cost working families.

The fundamental issue here is that a carbon tax is not going to change the temperature of the globe or change the climate in any shape or form. It is merely a gesture. A gesture that means that those who are already finding it extremely difficult to get by are going to have that difficulty exacerbated by a pointless tax with a deceitful inference that it will the change global climatic conditions.

What is the point of taking money off people, spinning it around a bureaucracy and giving people back a bit of their own money and expecting be thanked for it? Why don’t you just let people keep their own money and go away?

In the meantime you put up the price of the fundamental mechanism of commerce, power, so what is now our competitive advantage? Obviously we don’t want lower wages so ultimately there will be fewer jobs.

Is Australia going to be reduced to a country that digs up red rocks and black rocks, iron and coal and sends them over to where they don’t have a carbon tax so they can produce the things we used to produce?

Doesn’t the government get it? The people don’t want this tax and surely the have some right in being respected on this decision.

Even on the CFMEU website, the majority of the workers don’t want a carbon tax. I’m sure that this is not a National Party stronghold, so my advice to the Labor party is, listen to your own people otherwise it will end up in tears, like the NSW election.

Senator Barnaby Joyce
LNP Senator for Queensland, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate
13^th April 2011

The terrible events in Japan may well cast doubt on the safety of nuclear generation and, while reliable renewables such as tidal power can make some contribution as a substitute for nuclear, wind power cannot.

It is too undependable and, despite the speculators’ usually spurious claims, the outputs of even the latest skyscraper towers are trifling. Current wind energy policies are already heading for an era of unaffordable electricity and power cuts.

Any further expansion of wind power will wreck our economy and force industry, business and homes to rely on expensive and polluting candles, oil stoves and portable generators.

Make no mistake. If we do not have nuclear, the only way to generate public supplies is by setting fire to something, be it oil, gas, coal or wood (although the cheapest and most plentiful fuel may well be EU directives!).

ALUN JOHN RICHARDS
Swansea, Wales
Source: The Western Mail, Letters, 29 March 2011