Resisting Climate Hysteria

[IFocus]

TBH it doesn't matter 1.5 degrees C has come and gone I would be more concerned with 2.5 degrees C and above which is where we are headed... now.

 

[Logique2]

Wishing to save the world from climate change (gasp!),
we might best direct Bas, IF and Rederob to the China embassy..

Who's using the most coal? In what direction are power bills going?
So - off we go again to AI and ChatGPT..

Still waiting for that $275 saving on my power bill..

 

[Logique2]

Would you hear this from Bas or Rederob?
Or anyone living in Greenland or Ireland. Or Denmark. Or Tasmania.
Personally, I'd welcome +1.5C if living there..

ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessive-summer-heat-can-kill-but-extreme-cold-causes-more-fatalities/
Excessive Heat Can Kill, But Extreme Cold Still Causes Many More Fatalities
ByJoshua P. Cohen, Senior Contributor. Joshua Cohen is a Boston-based writer who covers health policy.
Jul 19, 2023, Jul 20, 2023

 

[basilio]

Would you hear this from Bas or Rederob?
Or anyone living in Greenland or Ireland. Or Denmark. Or Tasmania.
Personally, I'd welcome +1.5C if living there..

ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessive-summer-heat-can-kill-but-extreme-cold-causes-more-fatalities/
Excessive Heat Can Kill, But Extreme Cold Still Causes Many More Fatalities
ByJoshua P. Cohen, Senior Contributor. Joshua Cohen is a Boston-based writer who covers health policy.
Jul 19, 2023, Jul 20, 2023

Your absolutely right, as usual, Logique. How could anyone argue with such logic ? Not to mention the care you take in quoting your sources of (mis)information.

This the short story of what Joshua Cohen actually said.

 

[basilio]

Thanks Logique for introducing teh work of Joshue Cohen. I followed his lings and came to an excellent website he runs called Undark.
Very well work a read

Amid NOAA Cuts, Scientists Warn of Weather and Climate Risks

The federal agency supports everything from climate science to emergency preparedness. Cuts to funding and staff could hinder its work.

undark.org

 

[rederob]

Wishing to save the world from climate change (gasp!),
we might best direct Bas, IF and Rederob to the China embassy..

Who's using the most coal? In what direction are power bills going?
So - off we go again to AI and ChatGPT..

Still waiting for that $275 saving on my power bill..
View attachment 203868

View attachment 203869

As has been many times pointed out in this thread, the elevated level of global CO2 levels today is due to nations other than China burning fossil fuels for over 2 centuries.
So to combat climate change western nations need to significantly reduce their per capita CO2 levels.
Instead we have the white supremist argument dominating threads like this complaining that China is the problem.
But as we can see from the chart below the average Australian burns about 100% more coal to generate electricity than the average Chinese person.
On the flipside, the nation contributing most to replacing fossil fuels with renewables is China, by a massive margin.

 

[Sean K]

As has been many times pointed out in this thread, the elevated level of global CO2 levels today is due to nations other than China burning fossil fuels for over 2 centuries.
So to combat climate change western nations need to significantly reduce their per capita CO2 levels.
Instead we have the white supremist argument dominating threads like this complaining that China is the problem.
But as we can see from the chart below the average Australian burns about 100% more coal to generate electricity than the average Chinese person.
On the flipside, the nation contributing most to replacing fossil fuels with renewables is China, by a massive margin.

View attachment 203913

Correct, Western countries that went through industrialization and got out of poverty in the hundred years between 1850 and 1950 are the winners of the most CO2 emitted over time. They were the problem before they knew CO2 was a problem.

However, since the 80s/90s the West has dramatically cut back on emissions while the developing World, especially Asia, have pushed on with development to get their people out of poverty. Good on them. However, this has been in the face of growing scientific belief that CO2 was a problem.

Unfortunately, Asia is likely to take over cumulative CO2 emissions in the very near future primarily due to China, India and Indonesia. Asia is now the problem.

Your per capita CO2 argument will never stack up because global CO2 tonnage that might affect the climate does not care where the CO2 came from. As you correctly point out, it's simply the total cumulative number that's the issue. China may be producing lots of RE wattage but that doesn't mean the total CO2 emissions are any less.

If CO2 really is going to destroy the environment, I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at the Asia numbers objectively and think that's OK.

 

[rederob]

Correct, Western countries that went through industrialization and got out of poverty in the hundred years between 1850 and 1950 are the winners of the most CO2 emitted over time. They were the problem before they knew CO2 was a problem.

However, since the 80s/90s the West has dramatically cut back on emissions while the developing World, especially Asia, have pushed on with development to get their people out of poverty. Good on them. However, this has been in the face of growing scientific belief that CO2 was a problem.

Unfortunately, Asia is likely to take over cumulative CO2 emissions in the very near future primarily due to China, India and Indonesia. Asia is now the problem.

Your per capita CO2 argument will never stack up because global CO2 tonnage that might affect the climate does not care where the CO2 came from. As you correctly point out, it's simply the total cumulative number that's the issue. China may be producing lots of RE wattage but that doesn't mean the total CO2 emissions are any less.

If CO2 really is going to destroy the environment, I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at the Asia numbers objectively and think that's OK.

View attachment 203988

View attachment 203989

You simply continue the theme of white supremecism. The chart I presented shows the extent that even today has western nations - in this case represented by Australia - emitting significantly greater per capita emissions than China. But you believe its now incumbent on developing nations to stop their emissions because if they dare to develop further they will increase global CO2 emissions,. You clearly do not like the idea that we in the west - less than 15% of the global population - who are now fully industrialised and have caused the problem should be the larger part of the solution! The fact that China has a greater population than all western nations combined does not even factor into your thought processes.

We knew that CO2 was going to contibute to global warming in the 1800s, and were able to quantify the extent once and for all when Jim Hansen presented to Congress in 1988 the likely outcome of increasing CO2 emissions (1988 aslo coincided with the creation of the IPCC). Since the IPCC's first report in 1990 to their last in 2023 the west has paid lip service to their recommendations. And even the separate legally binding "Paris Agreement" of 2015 has seen western nation after western nation fiddle the books or walk away from their commitments.

The fact that you think it's OK for a person in a western nation to emit 10 times or more CO2 than one in a developing nation seems not to resonate as a concern because for you "the climate does not care where the CO2 came from". Well, 85% of the planet's population cares that they are being made a scapegoat for a problem that not only did they not cause, but one where the chief instigator has done SFA to curb their behaviour despite knowing better.

The other fact that white supremists love to ignore when it comes to China is that the largest slice of China's increasing emissions has been due to the west outsourcing manufacturing production to China for the past 35 years. It's easy to show your emissions are declining when you have transferred them to elsewhere.

Apart from data showing that China's CO2 emission are already in decline, we can see the extent that China has embraced it's own solution by pivoting to renewables. In 2024 China built more solar capacity than the US built over the last 25 years. We should be asking why China can do this when we in the west not only had a head start but also supposedly better technological skills.

 

[Sean K]

You simply continue the theme of white supremecism. The chart I presented shows the extent that even today has western nations - in this case represented by Australia - emitting significantly greater per capita emissions than China. But you believe its now incumbent on developing nations to stop their emissions because if they dare to develop further they will increase global CO2 emissions,. You clearly do not like the idea that we in the west - less than 15% of the global population - who are now fully industrialised and have caused the problem should be the larger part of the solution! The fact that China has a greater population than all western nations combined does not even factor into your thought processes.

We knew that CO2 was going to contibute to global warming in the 1800s, and were able to quantify the extent once and for all when Jim Hansen presented to Congress in 1988 the likely outcome of increasing CO2 emissions (1988 aslo coincided with the creation of the IPCC). Since the IPCC's first report in 1990 to their last in 2023 the west has paid lip service to their recommendations. And even the separate legally binding "Paris Agreement" of 2015 has seen western nation after western nation fiddle the books or walk away from their commitments.

The fact that you think it's OK for a person in a western nation to emit 10 times or more CO2 than one in a developing nation seems not to resonate as a concern because for you "the climate does not care where the CO2 came from". Well, 85% of the planet's population cares that they are being made a scapegoat for a problem that not only did they not cause, but one where the chief instigator has done SFA to curb their behaviour despite knowing better.

The other fact that white supremists love to ignore when it comes to China is that the largest slice of China's increasing emissions has been due to the west outsourcing manufacturing production to China for the past 35 years. It's easy to show your emissions are declining when you have transferred them to elsewhere.

Apart from data showing that China's CO2 emission are already in decline, we can see the extent that China has embraced it's own solution by pivoting to renewables. In 2024 China built more solar capacity than the US built over the last 25 years. We should be asking why China can do this when we in the west not only had a head start but also supposedly better technological skills.

View attachment 204002

So, the risk was quantified around 1990.

The West didn't export it's CO2 emissions. It exported manufacturing due to cheap labour. It's turned out to be CO2 emissions as well but that was not the motivation.

Asia doesn't care about global warming and the destruction of the planet.

This graph will continue to go parabolic until at least 2060.

Calling me a white supremacist isn't very cool.

 

[SirRumpole]

Our energy conversion is going pear shaped.

Companies are pulling out of renewable projects en masse.

Either governments will have to finance most of them or they will have to swallow their pride and build more coal until they can get the investment climate for renewables to be more favourable.

 

[rederob]

So, the risk was quantified around 1990.

No, the risk was quantified in the 1800s, as I wrote earlier. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Jim Hansen became famous because he presented climate scenarios into the future that showed US Congress the range of warming that could be expected. His near 40 year old scenarios have previously been presented in this thread and show them to be on track to this day.

The West didn't export it's CO2 emissions. It exported manufacturing due to cheap labour. It's turned out to be CO2 emissions as well but that was not the motivation.

It is inconceivable that it was unknown that offshoring manufacturing/production to China would also transfer concomitant CO2 output. It's like not knowing that the Industrial Revolution was the starting point for the pivot from natural variation in CO2 levels to the manmade cause of the greenhouse effect.

But the real point here is that YOU want to blame China for a problem that it did not cause, yet was subsequently affected by the wests offshoring. And you seem ignorant of the fact that China's per unit CO2 emissions for offshored products is now less than if they had been made in their country of origin, because China has scaled output to unmatched levels and its factories are nowadays simply more efficient than in the west.

Asia doesn't care about global warming and the destruction of the planet.

Your opinion has no basis in fact. One of those facts includes China's clearly spelled out plan for ensuring they would be carbon neutral by 2060, and at their current rate of decarbonising will be at least 10 years early. That prediction is based on the additional fact that China's emissions were expected to peak around 2030, however instead peaked in 2024.

You might also want to consider Indonesia's latest position.

Calling me a white supremacist isn't very cool.

In the context of climate change your posts are entirely consistent with white supremacy, as I have clearly spelled out. The fact that you are not willing to consider how 85% of the planet's population (mostly non-white) has been affected by the west, and then disregard that the west remains a massively larger per capita contributor to global warming, is adequate proof for any reasonable person. In simple terms you think it ok to be a greater polluter than a person in a developing country like China, because you have rationalised the problem as being global. That position is defeated by basic logic because 85% of the planet's population did not put us in the present predicament, while at the same time the west, with full knowledge of the likely effects of gloabl warming, has effectively disregarded IPCC's recommentations on how to to turn around the problem.

 

[SirRumpole]

No, the risk was quantified in the 1800s, as I wrote earlier. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Jim Hansen became famous because he presented climate scenarios into the future that showed US Congress the range of warming that could be expected. His near 40 year old scenarios have previously been presented in this thread and show them to be on track to this day.

It is inconceivable that it was unknown that offshoring manufacturing/production to China would also transfer concomitant CO2 output. It's like not knowing that the Industrial Revolution was the starting point for the pivot from natural variation in CO2 levels to the manmade cause of the greenhouse effect.

But the real point here is that YOU want to blame China for a problem that it did not cause, yet was subsequently affected by the wests offshoring. And you seem ignorant of the fact that China's per unit CO2 emissions for offshored products is now less than if they had been made in their country of origin, because China has scaled output to unmatched levels and its factories are nowadays simply more efficient than in the west.

Your opinion has no basis in fact. One of those facts includes China's clearly spelled out plan for ensuring they would be carbon neutral by 2060, and at their current rate of decarbonising will be at least 10 years early. That prediction is based on the additional fact that China's emissions were expected to peak around 2030, however instead peaked in 2024.

You might also want to consider Indonesia's latest position.

In the context of climate change your posts are entirely consistent with white supremacy, as I have clearly spelled out. The fact that you are not willing to consider how 85% of the planet's population (mostly non-white) has been affected by the west, and then disregard that the west remains a massively larger per capita contributor to global warming, is adequate proof for any reasonable person. In simple terms you think it ok to be a greater polluter than a person in a developing country like China, because you have rationalised the problem as being global. That position is defeated by basic logic because 85% of the planet's population did not put us in the present predicament, while at the same time the west, with full knowledge of the likely effects of gloabl warming, has effectively disregarded IPCC's recommentations on how to to turn around the problem.

Looks like Alan Kohler agrees with you Rob.

China is supercharging its renewables industry

Follow the latest news headlines from Australia's most trusted source. Read in-depth expert analysis and watch live coverage on ABC News.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Smurf1976]

Our energy conversion is going pear shaped.

Companies are pulling out of renewable projects en masse.

I'll simply say the problems with energy in Australia do have a connection to the climate issue and associated politics but they're far more about what happens when incompetence is in charge for an extended period.

It's not changing the means of generation that's doubled the retail price of electricity to household consumers in real terms (adjusted for inflation based on RBA data).

It's incompetence that did it.

Australia could be doing so much better than it is, regardless of the technology used.

 

[Sean K]

Good article from Uhlmann in The Oz yesterday. It's a bit long and I'd normally just post up a cut and paste of the important bits, but it's a good read for those that don't have a subscription. Lefties, save you stress and read The Guardian climate pages instead.

My personal take on this is that Australia is giving up it's natural advantage in energy security and prosperity for zero reason other than to pander to brainwashed Leftards intend on transferring wealth out of Australia and open us up for significant geostrategic risk in the future.

The world once cheered Germany’s green fairytale, which had a title that evoked a brisk, healthy walk in the woods: Energiewende.

Now its energy transition is a Brothers Grimm nightmare as naive ideals are devoured by the wolves of reality.

The dark parable is starkly told in the first paragraphs of a recent open letter to the Chancellor from an alliance of worker representatives in Germany’s industrial heartland.

“We are in the most severe economic crisis since World War II,” it begins.

“Just last year, at least 100,000 industrial jobs were eliminated altogether. The political promises of the previous federal government for a ‘green economic miracle’ have amounted to smoke and mirrors. In reality, never before have so many well-paid jobs been under threat as they are today.

“If the energy transition is, as some say, ‘an operation on the open heart of our economy’, then so far this operation has failed miserably. We must admit: The patient is in danger of dying on the operating table.

“For 35 years, (solar) and wind power have been legally privileged and subsidised, but to this day they contribute no more to supply security than they did three decades ago. Instead, they generate hundreds of billions in grid costs.”

The signatories include union leaders and the elected chairs of works councils who represent workers in industries employing more than one million people.

It will come as no surprise to learn that Australian Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is a big fan of Berlin’s scalpel work.

In a meeting with his German counterpart in 2024 he said: “We have no more important partner than Germany when it comes to energy transformation. Germany is a great industrial powerhouse of the world.”

That Germany is facing an industrial crisis spawned by its energy policy is obvious to anyone who doesn’t work in fiction. Berlin’s failure, like Bowen’s, can be measured in the billions squandered to cover the illusion of cheap, green power.

London’s Financial Times reports: “Germany is exploring ways to fund multibillion-euro subsidies for energy-intensive companies as part of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s pledge to boost the competitiveness of the country’s heavy industries. The measure is part of efforts to reduce electricity costs for industrial groups to revitalise the eurozone’s largest economy after its longest postwar period of stagnation.”

That stagnation is entirely self-inflicted, as the union leaders’ letter to the Chancellor notes.

“Germany’s dual exit from nuclear power and coal has made us dependent on unreliable (solar) and wind power and expensive gas imports. We pay for this with the highest electricity prices in Europe. Never before has our power supply been so expensive and insecure. These high prices are not only socially unfair, they now threaten our economy, our prosperity and social peace.”

It is unlikely the officials would have been cheered by a signature Bowen bon mot, delivered in a sadly underreported speech in their homeland.

“There is no geopolitical crisis that can stop the sun shining and the wind blowing,” Bowen said. “Renewable energy, supported by storage and transmission, is secure energy.”

CAUTIONARY TALE​

Precisely the opposite is proving true in Germany, and everywhere else where weather-dependent generation rises to become a dominant form of power.

Rather than seeing Germany as a cautionary tale, Australia is conducting the same open-heart surgery on its eastern national electricity market, the most complex and most vital piece of machinery in the land.

All of the same symptoms of distress are evident. The patient is dying.

You could cover the continent in wind turbines and solar panels and spend countless billions on batteries, and without a 100 per cent backup from a fuel source that system will never be guaranteed to deliver reliable power on demand every second of every day of the year. In an electricity system, that is the only kind of power that counts.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright underscored this in an appearance before a congressional committee.

Unlike our Chris, Wright ran an energy company and has degrees in mechanical and electrical engineering.

He told the committee: “If you’re not there at peak demand, you’re just a parasite on the grid because you just make the other sources turn up and down as you come and go.

“Our electricity markets have rewarded low-value electricity and we’ve subsidised (it) to put more of it on. We need to have people bidding into a marketplace that are both delivering the same product, which is 24/7 electricity, because that’s the only thing customers will buy.”

Australia is flooding its eastern grid with high-cost, low-value parasite power, driven not by engineering or economics but by politics.

At the same time, we’ve vilified coal, the fuel that still supplies the bulk of our electricity, and gas, the only scalable replacement. The result: high gas prices and soaring system costs, and the only model you need to check this fact is your electricity bill. The truth is writ large in $6.8bn in federal government power bill subsidies and in the businesses going to the wall.

It gets worse. If Australia is serious about cutting global carbon emissions then that demands we end our exports of coal and liquefied natural gas, ripping $160bn a year from our economy. As cover for this act of economic self-harm, the government inserts the word green in front of energy and builds a fantasy future on the quicksand of industries that do not exist.

Bowen’s reason for being in Germany last year was to forge a green hydrogen partnership. Green hydrogen sounds like the future of fuel, until you realise it devours more energy in production than it returns.

In practical terms, it’s about as efficient as burning wet wood.

But the more projects fail, the more the government is determined to burn taxpayer dollars as fuel.

At least six large-scale green hydrogen projects were shelved or cancelled in Australia between late 2024 and mid-2025. Rystad Energy analysis shows around 99 per cent of announced green hydrogen capacity in Australia has stalled at the concept or approval stage, with CSIRO data showing at least 61 projects quietly scrapped before reaching final investment decision.

When Origin Energy pulled out of the Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub in NSW, Bowen stepped in to prop it up with another $432m in taxpayer cash.

The idea of this project is to supply green hydrogen to Orica’s ammonia plant in Newcastle.

But look closely and you learn all this cash is being hosed at the meagre goal of replacing 7.5 per cent of the plant’s daily natural gas demand, meaning 92.5 per cent of ammonia production still will rely on fossil fuel. The gas saved will be redirected into supporting the grid.

So net-zero change in the amount of gas burned in Australia.

Centre for Independent Studies energy research director Aidan Morrison notes the hub has already gobbled up grants of $70m from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and $45m from NSW. “The proportions of public spending required highlight the depravity of the endeavour,” he says.

“And whilst I know the game Chris Bowen is playing, this poses serious questions for Orica. What exactly are they trying to achieve?

“Does Orica not realise that the same set of delusions that led Germany to its present crisis currently (has) a firm hold on Australia’s government, particularly our Energy Minister?”

The Australian energy story is built on delusions cut from the pages of The Magic Pudding. In this fairytale we put our faith in endlessly regenerating, cost-free energy unconstrained by physics and material limits.

But we are just a chapter in an epic work of global mythology that tells of a planet acting in unison to cut carbon emissions by replacing fossil fuel with weather-dependent generation and batteries.

Let’s take a whip around the real world to see how that magical thinking stacks up. This column has noted before that the gold standard measure for global energy production and consumption is the Statistical Review of World Energy. The latest report records that in 2024 the world burned more coal, oil and gas than in any previous year, surpassing the record set in 2023.

Eighty-two per cent of the world’s total energy demand, what’s called primary energy, was met by fossil fuels. Wind and solar combined contributed less than 4 per cent.

There is rapid growth in wind and solar generation but it is not replacing hydrocarbons, it is adding to the world’s ever-increasing demand for power.

The review also records that global carbon dioxide emissions rose again in 2024, reaching yet another all-time high. And everywhere you look, these numbers are confirmed by government deeds that are routinely at odds with government myth-making.

Like most of the mainstream media, the Financial Times is signed up to the goal of hitting net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but its recent feature on coal highlighted an inconvenient truth.

“Today the world burns nearly double the amount of coal that it did in 2000, and four times the amount it did in 1950. Every minute of every day, 16,700 tonnes of coal are excavated from the ground – enough to fill seven Olympic swimming pools.”

And 57 per cent of the world’s coal is burned in China.

MEANWHILE IN CHINA ...​

Despite the endlessly hyped record levels of investment in wind, solar and batteries, coal still dominates China’s electricity sector, accounting for 58 per cent of its generation in 2024. Eighty-six per cent of China’s primary energy comes from coal, oil and gas. That number will not change in a hurry because China is building new coal-fired power plants at the rate of one a week.

China remains the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, accounting for about a third of the global total. Along with India, it contributed 62 per cent of the increase in global emissions last year.

Australian politicians usually like to focus on Beijing’s green credentials, but on a diplomatic tour through the Pacific Foreign Minister Penny Wong offered a rare moment of candour. When pressed by journalists about pursuing even more extreme emissions targets than those Labor has already signed up to, Wong pointed the finger at Beijing.

“China is the world’s largest emitter. Its actions will determine whether we can achieve our target,” the Foreign Minister said.

Australia accounts for just more than 1 per cent of global carbon emissions. We could unplug the nation and China would replace our yearly carbon footprint in a fortnight.

Pretending that our share of emissions will decide the fate of the Great Barrier Reef, save a seahorse or alter global weather patterns is not just a fantasy, it’s a lie.

COAL HARD TRUTHS​

If you want to know what the world is up to, follow the money, because Beijing’s interest in coal does not end at its borders. Chinese banks led global coal-related financing, allocating nearly $US248bn ($364bn) to the industry between 2022 and 2024, according to the Still Banking on Coal 2025 report by Urgewald, a German environmental group that tracks fossil fuel finance.

US banks ranked second, providing about $US51bn across the same time, led by Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup.

Australia may be shutting coal-fired generation but the rest of the world still wants the cheap, reliable power that it delivers. In India, coal accounts for about 52 per cent of primary energy, while in Indonesia, it provides nearly 66 per cent of electricity generation.

Of course, each of these countries also has a great green fairytale of their own, so it’s always best to check how headlines stack up against stories.

In February, Reuters reported: “India has the second-largest clean power capacity development pipeline globally after China, with nearly 56,000 megawatts of new renewables, hydro and nuclear capacity under construction.”

Read on and you learn: “However, the country is also building 30,000MW of new coal-fired capacity, which will preserve coal’s status as India’s primary power source even after the construction boom.”

The short story is India is in the process of building four times the total coal generation on Australia’s eastern grid. Those new coal-fired plants will be generating near capacity 24/7, while the new wind or solar developments will deliver well less than half their claimed capacity when averaged over a year.

One of the headlines on Indonesia’s energy transformation is its bid to build Southeast Asia’s largest floating solar farm. Less newsprint is devoted to the fact private coal-fired plants built to power nickel smelters are exempt from environmental reviews and are not counted in the country’s pledges to reduce fossil fuel use.

Most of the smelters are owned by Chinese companies and the exemption is justified on the grounds that nickel is vital to the green energy transition.

South Africa generated a lot of glowing press at the 2021 global climate jamboree when it partnered with the EU, France, Germany, Britain and the US to pledge it would transition from coal-dependent energy to a low-carbon economy. The investors group pledged $US8.5bn across five years to assist in this endeavour, and it is estimated that the full cost of this project is in the order of $US99bn.

Alas, in February, South Africa officially designated coal as a critical mineral.

“For us, coal is a critical mineral because it generates substantial revenue,” Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe told the Investing in African Mining conference in Cape Town.

“The coal sector remains highly attractive for new and expanded investments.”

Coal delivers about 72 per cent of South Africa’s primary energy, and the government forecasts that won’t change over the next decade.

In Morocco, the big energy news is that Britain has pulled out of a project to transmit power generated by North Africa’s abundant wind and sunshine through underwater cables.

Britain’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said in a statement that it would no longer support the $33bn project because of a “high level of inherent risk, related to both delivery and security”.

The UK’s drive to lead the world in weather-dependent energy has helped deliver some of the highest power prices in the world. This has fuelled a surge in energy poverty, with 24 per cent of households behind on their bills and average debts topping £1700 ($3500). Energy-intensive industries are collapsing: manufacturing output is now at its lowest point in 35 years, as firms warn high electricity costs are making it impossible to stay competitive.

Meanwhile, in South America, Argentina is rapidly expanding oil and gas production in its Vaca Muerta shale basin, with output rising sharply and new pipelines under construction to support exports. State energy firm Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales is investing heavily and has signed LNG deals with Europe, helping drive an expected $US8bn energy trade surplus in 2025.

Brazil is busy burnishing its green fable as it prepares to host this year’s UN climate summit. It comes as its government is ramping up fossil fuel production, auctioning off 172 new oil and gas blocks in June, including 47 in the environmentally sensitive Amazon basin. State oil giant Petrobras plans to boost output by 33 per cent, aiming to top one billion barrels a year by 2030.

Canada is pressing the pedal to the metal on all its resources, expanding oil and gas production and building major new pipelines as it aims to be an energy superpower. It still has ambitious emissions targets but plans to get there by investing heavily in technologies Australia refuses to countenance: carbon capture and nuclear energy.

TRUMP’S MOVES​

Just about the only country that isn’t pretending to care about hitting carbon-cutting targets is the US. Donald Trump began demolishing the nation’s climate policy on day one of his second term, quitting the Paris Agreement, ending offshore wind projects and defunding key Biden-era programs.

Within 52 days, his administration had reversed emissions standards, paused clean energy initiatives, and gutted regulatory agencies.

In a December essay, Oxford economist Sir Dieter Helm delivered a sweeping indictment of global climate policy, arguing the net-zero consensus is breaking down because it is built on illusion. Helm contrasts the ritual of yearly climate summits with the unbroken rise of carbon emissions and the stubborn 80 per cent share of global energy still held by fossil fuels.

He exposes the core deceit: net-zero targets are based on territorial emissions rather than consumption, allowing rich nations to offshore their carbon footprint, turning climate policy into a worldwide accounting shell game.

There is no energy transition.

“Oil output is over 100 million barrels a day, coal is maintaining its markets, and gas is booming,” Helm writes.

“Just as there was no transition from wood to coal, or from coal to oil, there is no transition from coal, oil and gas to renewables, even in electricity.”

One transition is all too real: from low to high-cost electricity.

Helm demolishes the claim that weather-dependent generation is cheaper than other sources of energy. “The system costs of renewables are what matters,” he writes.

“As more and more are added to the electricity system, they require not just a very large and costly rebuilding of the grid, but also more and more back-up generation for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. This is not controversial: it is well-known but widely simply ignored.”

Search the globe and everywhere facts puncture myriad green myths. No electricity grid anywhere runs reliably on wind, solar and batteries without 100 per cent backup from hydro, nuclear, coal, gas or imports. Every nation with high wind and solar penetration has high electricity prices. Almost all nations exploit the energy resources they have because energy is the economy.

Access to cheap, abundant energy is the driving force in making a country wealthy. No matter what they say, most nations are more interested in energy security than hitting net zero by 2050, or any other year.

And every nation has its own green energy fable. Ours will not have a happy ending.

 

[SirRumpole]

Good article from Uhlmann in The Oz yesterday. It's a bit long and I'd normally just post up a cut and paste of the important bits, but it's a good read for those that don't have a subscription. Lefties, save you stress and read The Guardian climate pages instead.

My personal take on this is that Australia is giving up it's natural advantage in energy security and prosperity for zero reason other than to pander to brainwashed Leftards intend on transferring wealth out of Australia and open us up for significant geostrategic risk in the future.


View attachment 204127

The world once cheered Germany’s green fairytale, which had a title that evoked a brisk, healthy walk in the woods: Energiewende.

Now its energy transition is a Brothers Grimm nightmare as naive ideals are devoured by the wolves of reality.

The dark parable is starkly told in the first paragraphs of a recent open letter to the Chancellor from an alliance of worker representatives in Germany’s industrial heartland.

“We are in the most severe economic crisis since World War II,” it begins.

“Just last year, at least 100,000 industrial jobs were eliminated altogether. The political promises of the previous federal government for a ‘green economic miracle’ have amounted to smoke and mirrors. In reality, never before have so many well-paid jobs been under threat as they are today.

“If the energy transition is, as some say, ‘an operation on the open heart of our economy’, then so far this operation has failed miserably. We must admit: The patient is in danger of dying on the operating table.

“For 35 years, (solar) and wind power have been legally privileged and subsidised, but to this day they contribute no more to supply security than they did three decades ago. Instead, they generate hundreds of billions in grid costs.”

The signatories include union leaders and the elected chairs of works councils who represent workers in industries employing more than one million people.

It will come as no surprise to learn that Australian Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is a big fan of Berlin’s scalpel work.

In a meeting with his German counterpart in 2024 he said: “We have no more important partner than Germany when it comes to energy transformation. Germany is a great industrial powerhouse of the world.”

That Germany is facing an industrial crisis spawned by its energy policy is obvious to anyone who doesn’t work in fiction. Berlin’s failure, like Bowen’s, can be measured in the billions squandered to cover the illusion of cheap, green power.

London’s Financial Times reports: “Germany is exploring ways to fund multibillion-euro subsidies for energy-intensive companies as part of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s pledge to boost the competitiveness of the country’s heavy industries. The measure is part of efforts to reduce electricity costs for industrial groups to revitalise the eurozone’s largest economy after its longest postwar period of stagnation.”

That stagnation is entirely self-inflicted, as the union leaders’ letter to the Chancellor notes.

“Germany’s dual exit from nuclear power and coal has made us dependent on unreliable (solar) and wind power and expensive gas imports. We pay for this with the highest electricity prices in Europe. Never before has our power supply been so expensive and insecure. These high prices are not only socially unfair, they now threaten our economy, our prosperity and social peace.”

It is unlikely the officials would have been cheered by a signature Bowen bon mot, delivered in a sadly underreported speech in their homeland.

“There is no geopolitical crisis that can stop the sun shining and the wind blowing,” Bowen said. “Renewable energy, supported by storage and transmission, is secure energy.”

CAUTIONARY TALE​

Precisely the opposite is proving true in Germany, and everywhere else where weather-dependent generation rises to become a dominant form of power.

Rather than seeing Germany as a cautionary tale, Australia is conducting the same open-heart surgery on its eastern national electricity market, the most complex and most vital piece of machinery in the land.

All of the same symptoms of distress are evident. The patient is dying.

You could cover the continent in wind turbines and solar panels and spend countless billions on batteries, and without a 100 per cent backup from a fuel source that system will never be guaranteed to deliver reliable power on demand every second of every day of the year. In an electricity system, that is the only kind of power that counts.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright underscored this in an appearance before a congressional committee.

Unlike our Chris, Wright ran an energy company and has degrees in mechanical and electrical engineering.

He told the committee: “If you’re not there at peak demand, you’re just a parasite on the grid because you just make the other sources turn up and down as you come and go.

“Our electricity markets have rewarded low-value electricity and we’ve subsidised (it) to put more of it on. We need to have people bidding into a marketplace that are both delivering the same product, which is 24/7 electricity, because that’s the only thing customers will buy.”

Australia is flooding its eastern grid with high-cost, low-value parasite power, driven not by engineering or economics but by politics.

At the same time, we’ve vilified coal, the fuel that still supplies the bulk of our electricity, and gas, the only scalable replacement. The result: high gas prices and soaring system costs, and the only model you need to check this fact is your electricity bill. The truth is writ large in $6.8bn in federal government power bill subsidies and in the businesses going to the wall.

It gets worse. If Australia is serious about cutting global carbon emissions then that demands we end our exports of coal and liquefied natural gas, ripping $160bn a year from our economy. As cover for this act of economic self-harm, the government inserts the word green in front of energy and builds a fantasy future on the quicksand of industries that do not exist.

Bowen’s reason for being in Germany last year was to forge a green hydrogen partnership. Green hydrogen sounds like the future of fuel, until you realise it devours more energy in production than it returns.

In practical terms, it’s about as efficient as burning wet wood.

But the more projects fail, the more the government is determined to burn taxpayer dollars as fuel.

At least six large-scale green hydrogen projects were shelved or cancelled in Australia between late 2024 and mid-2025. Rystad Energy analysis shows around 99 per cent of announced green hydrogen capacity in Australia has stalled at the concept or approval stage, with CSIRO data showing at least 61 projects quietly scrapped before reaching final investment decision.

When Origin Energy pulled out of the Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub in NSW, Bowen stepped in to prop it up with another $432m in taxpayer cash.

The idea of this project is to supply green hydrogen to Orica’s ammonia plant in Newcastle.

But look closely and you learn all this cash is being hosed at the meagre goal of replacing 7.5 per cent of the plant’s daily natural gas demand, meaning 92.5 per cent of ammonia production still will rely on fossil fuel. The gas saved will be redirected into supporting the grid.

So net-zero change in the amount of gas burned in Australia.

Centre for Independent Studies energy research director Aidan Morrison notes the hub has already gobbled up grants of $70m from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and $45m from NSW. “The proportions of public spending required highlight the depravity of the endeavour,” he says.

“And whilst I know the game Chris Bowen is playing, this poses serious questions for Orica. What exactly are they trying to achieve?

“Does Orica not realise that the same set of delusions that led Germany to its present crisis currently (has) a firm hold on Australia’s government, particularly our Energy Minister?”

The Australian energy story is built on delusions cut from the pages of The Magic Pudding. In this fairytale we put our faith in endlessly regenerating, cost-free energy unconstrained by physics and material limits.

But we are just a chapter in an epic work of global mythology that tells of a planet acting in unison to cut carbon emissions by replacing fossil fuel with weather-dependent generation and batteries.

Let’s take a whip around the real world to see how that magical thinking stacks up. This column has noted before that the gold standard measure for global energy production and consumption is the Statistical Review of World Energy. The latest report records that in 2024 the world burned more coal, oil and gas than in any previous year, surpassing the record set in 2023.

Eighty-two per cent of the world’s total energy demand, what’s called primary energy, was met by fossil fuels. Wind and solar combined contributed less than 4 per cent.

There is rapid growth in wind and solar generation but it is not replacing hydrocarbons, it is adding to the world’s ever-increasing demand for power.

The review also records that global carbon dioxide emissions rose again in 2024, reaching yet another all-time high. And everywhere you look, these numbers are confirmed by government deeds that are routinely at odds with government myth-making.

Like most of the mainstream media, the Financial Times is signed up to the goal of hitting net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but its recent feature on coal highlighted an inconvenient truth.

“Today the world burns nearly double the amount of coal that it did in 2000, and four times the amount it did in 1950. Every minute of every day, 16,700 tonnes of coal are excavated from the ground – enough to fill seven Olympic swimming pools.”

And 57 per cent of the world’s coal is burned in China.

MEANWHILE IN CHINA ...​

Despite the endlessly hyped record levels of investment in wind, solar and batteries, coal still dominates China’s electricity sector, accounting for 58 per cent of its generation in 2024. Eighty-six per cent of China’s primary energy comes from coal, oil and gas. That number will not change in a hurry because China is building new coal-fired power plants at the rate of one a week.

China remains the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, accounting for about a third of the global total. Along with India, it contributed 62 per cent of the increase in global emissions last year.

Australian politicians usually like to focus on Beijing’s green credentials, but on a diplomatic tour through the Pacific Foreign Minister Penny Wong offered a rare moment of candour. When pressed by journalists about pursuing even more extreme emissions targets than those Labor has already signed up to, Wong pointed the finger at Beijing.

“China is the world’s largest emitter. Its actions will determine whether we can achieve our target,” the Foreign Minister said.

Australia accounts for just more than 1 per cent of global carbon emissions. We could unplug the nation and China would replace our yearly carbon footprint in a fortnight.

Pretending that our share of emissions will decide the fate of the Great Barrier Reef, save a seahorse or alter global weather patterns is not just a fantasy, it’s a lie.

COAL HARD TRUTHS​

If you want to know what the world is up to, follow the money, because Beijing’s interest in coal does not end at its borders. Chinese banks led global coal-related financing, allocating nearly $US248bn ($364bn) to the industry between 2022 and 2024, according to the Still Banking on Coal 2025 report by Urgewald, a German environmental group that tracks fossil fuel finance.

US banks ranked second, providing about $US51bn across the same time, led by Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup.

Australia may be shutting coal-fired generation but the rest of the world still wants the cheap, reliable power that it delivers. In India, coal accounts for about 52 per cent of primary energy, while in Indonesia, it provides nearly 66 per cent of electricity generation.

Of course, each of these countries also has a great green fairytale of their own, so it’s always best to check how headlines stack up against stories.

In February, Reuters reported: “India has the second-largest clean power capacity development pipeline globally after China, with nearly 56,000 megawatts of new renewables, hydro and nuclear capacity under construction.”

Read on and you learn: “However, the country is also building 30,000MW of new coal-fired capacity, which will preserve coal’s status as India’s primary power source even after the construction boom.”

The short story is India is in the process of building four times the total coal generation on Australia’s eastern grid. Those new coal-fired plants will be generating near capacity 24/7, while the new wind or solar developments will deliver well less than half their claimed capacity when averaged over a year.

One of the headlines on Indonesia’s energy transformation is its bid to build Southeast Asia’s largest floating solar farm. Less newsprint is devoted to the fact private coal-fired plants built to power nickel smelters are exempt from environmental reviews and are not counted in the country’s pledges to reduce fossil fuel use.

Most of the smelters are owned by Chinese companies and the exemption is justified on the grounds that nickel is vital to the green energy transition.

South Africa generated a lot of glowing press at the 2021 global climate jamboree when it partnered with the EU, France, Germany, Britain and the US to pledge it would transition from coal-dependent energy to a low-carbon economy. The investors group pledged $US8.5bn across five years to assist in this endeavour, and it is estimated that the full cost of this project is in the order of $US99bn.

Alas, in February, South Africa officially designated coal as a critical mineral.

“For us, coal is a critical mineral because it generates substantial revenue,” Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe told the Investing in African Mining conference in Cape Town.

“The coal sector remains highly attractive for new and expanded investments.”

Coal delivers about 72 per cent of South Africa’s primary energy, and the government forecasts that won’t change over the next decade.

In Morocco, the big energy news is that Britain has pulled out of a project to transmit power generated by North Africa’s abundant wind and sunshine through underwater cables.

Britain’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said in a statement that it would no longer support the $33bn project because of a “high level of inherent risk, related to both delivery and security”.

The UK’s drive to lead the world in weather-dependent energy has helped deliver some of the highest power prices in the world. This has fuelled a surge in energy poverty, with 24 per cent of households behind on their bills and average debts topping £1700 ($3500). Energy-intensive industries are collapsing: manufacturing output is now at its lowest point in 35 years, as firms warn high electricity costs are making it impossible to stay competitive.

Meanwhile, in South America, Argentina is rapidly expanding oil and gas production in its Vaca Muerta shale basin, with output rising sharply and new pipelines under construction to support exports. State energy firm Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales is investing heavily and has signed LNG deals with Europe, helping drive an expected $US8bn energy trade surplus in 2025.

Brazil is busy burnishing its green fable as it prepares to host this year’s UN climate summit. It comes as its government is ramping up fossil fuel production, auctioning off 172 new oil and gas blocks in June, including 47 in the environmentally sensitive Amazon basin. State oil giant Petrobras plans to boost output by 33 per cent, aiming to top one billion barrels a year by 2030.

Canada is pressing the pedal to the metal on all its resources, expanding oil and gas production and building major new pipelines as it aims to be an energy superpower. It still has ambitious emissions targets but plans to get there by investing heavily in technologies Australia refuses to countenance: carbon capture and nuclear energy.

TRUMP’S MOVES​

Just about the only country that isn’t pretending to care about hitting carbon-cutting targets is the US. Donald Trump began demolishing the nation’s climate policy on day one of his second term, quitting the Paris Agreement, ending offshore wind projects and defunding key Biden-era programs.

Within 52 days, his administration had reversed emissions standards, paused clean energy initiatives, and gutted regulatory agencies.

In a December essay, Oxford economist Sir Dieter Helm delivered a sweeping indictment of global climate policy, arguing the net-zero consensus is breaking down because it is built on illusion. Helm contrasts the ritual of yearly climate summits with the unbroken rise of carbon emissions and the stubborn 80 per cent share of global energy still held by fossil fuels.

He exposes the core deceit: net-zero targets are based on territorial emissions rather than consumption, allowing rich nations to offshore their carbon footprint, turning climate policy into a worldwide accounting shell game.

There is no energy transition.

“Oil output is over 100 million barrels a day, coal is maintaining its markets, and gas is booming,” Helm writes.

“Just as there was no transition from wood to coal, or from coal to oil, there is no transition from coal, oil and gas to renewables, even in electricity.”

One transition is all too real: from low to high-cost electricity.

Helm demolishes the claim that weather-dependent generation is cheaper than other sources of energy. “The system costs of renewables are what matters,” he writes.

“As more and more are added to the electricity system, they require not just a very large and costly rebuilding of the grid, but also more and more back-up generation for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. This is not controversial: it is well-known but widely simply ignored.”

Search the globe and everywhere facts puncture myriad green myths. No electricity grid anywhere runs reliably on wind, solar and batteries without 100 per cent backup from hydro, nuclear, coal, gas or imports. Every nation with high wind and solar penetration has high electricity prices. Almost all nations exploit the energy resources they have because energy is the economy.

Access to cheap, abundant energy is the driving force in making a country wealthy. No matter what they say, most nations are more interested in energy security than hitting net zero by 2050, or any other year.

And every nation has its own green energy fable. Ours will not have a happy ending.

Well, as I said, the dream is turning into a nightmare.

Coal and gas will run out eventually, so other sources have to be found, but do we go back into caves in the meantime?

Not if sanity prevails I hope.

We need as much variety of energy sources as we can get as long as they give a cost benefit margin. Lets be more pragmatic about fossil fuel, they are still viable, but it shouldn't be either renewables or fossil fuels in the medium term but both.

 

[IFocus]

As I have said before I stopped following glacier melt world wide because its so bad, extortionary to reflect on the tile of this thread when we have hit 1.5 degrees c already and its looking like its not an outlier...fu(k, some still calling it a scam.

Below is a horror story for the generations to come.

Australian scientists record accelerating glacier loss on sub-Antarctic Heard Island​

Glaciers on the remote Australian territory of Heard Island have lost almost a quarter of their size in the past seven decades amid rising temperatures in the sub-Antarctic region, new research shows.

The World Heritage-listed sub-Antarctic island, 4,100 kilometres south-west of Perth, is considered one of the most pristine places on the planet and a haven for wildlife.

Melting glaciers on remote Australian island spark concern

Glaciers on the remote Australian territory of Heard Island have lost almost a quarter of their size over the past seven decades amid rising temperatures in the sub-Antarctic region, new research shows.

www.abc.net.au

 

[basilio]

As I have said before I stopped following glacier melt world wide because its so bad, extortionary to reflect on the tile of this thread when we have hit 1.5 degrees c already and its looking like its not an outlier...fu(k, some still calling it a scam.

Below is a horror story for the generations to come.

Australian scientists record accelerating glacier loss on sub-Antarctic Heard Island​

Glaciers on the remote Australian territory of Heard Island have lost almost a quarter of their size in the past seven decades amid rising temperatures in the sub-Antarctic region, new research shows.

The World Heritage-listed sub-Antarctic island, 4,100 kilometres south-west of Perth, is considered one of the most pristine places on the planet and a haven for wildlife.

Melting glaciers on remote Australian island spark concern

Glaciers on the remote Australian territory of Heard Island have lost almost a quarter of their size over the past seven decades amid rising temperatures in the sub-Antarctic region, new research shows.

www.abc.net.au

Yes it is hysterical. The inevitable result of glaciers melting in Greenland, Antarctica and everywhere is rising sea levels. The maps of what happens when oceans rise are well known - if largely disregarded. The threat comes not from absolute rises in sea levels but teh consequences of extreme events which push water far further than normal. The hysteria will come...

This story is 5 years old now.

Flooding from sea level rise could cost our planet $14.2 trillion, study says ​

By Helen Regan, CNN

5 min read

Published 11:02 AM EDT, Thu July 30, 2020


If the world does nothing to mitigate sea level rise, coastal flooding will become so extreme and destructive that it could cause damage worth up to 20% of global gross domestic product by 2100, according to new research.

The study, published Thursday in the journal Science Reports, is the first to map the projected economic impact of sea level rise caused by the climate crisis.

The authors say rising sea levels could cost the global economy $14.2 trillion in lost or damaged assets by the end of the century, as larger areas of land, home to millions of people, are inundated.

All about extreme​

Instead of focusing on the mean – or average – rise in sea levels, the study looks at sea levels during extreme storms over the past 30 years to model the maximum area that could be at risk of flooding.

They took this route because flooding or beach erosion is most likely to happen during a storm, they said.

They mapped all of the “one in 100-year” flooding events – particularly the destructive storm surges and flooding that result from intense storms and cyclones – onto the world’s coastlines. Combining this data with projections of sea level rises under different greenhouse gas emission scenarios, the authors modeled maximum increases in sea levels.

“We are looking at extremes,” said Young. “Being able to model the tide, storm surge, wave set up, sea level rise, the extremes that that generates, and to do it on a global scale – that’s what is unique about this project.”

Loading...

edition.cnn.com

 

[IFocus]

Melting glaciers will short term help to cool the ocean around local areas then it all hits fan.

 

[wayneL]

Melting glaciers will short term help to cool the ocean around local areas then it all hits fan

As predicted....

....for the last fifty years

We were actually inundated and burnt up twenty years ago

 

[rederob]

Good article from Uhlmann in The Oz yesterday. It's a bit long and I'd normally just post up a cut and paste of the important bits, but it's a good read for those that don't have a subscription. Lefties, save you stress and read The Guardian climate pages instead.

I thought about it and held off responding because it really has SFA to do with climate change. But I will now make a few comments on the many lies and misrepresentations from Chris Ulmann.

My personal take on this is that Australia is giving up it's natural advantage in energy security and prosperity for zero reason other than to pander to brainwashed Leftards intend on transferring wealth out of Australia and open us up for significant geostrategic risk in the future.

Australia's natural advantage in wind and solar is unmatched globally and personal takes don't trump facts. The only issue is how Australia goes about tapping in to its theoretical abundance and how it transfers it elsewhere.

Via Chris Uhlmann - "The world once cheered Germany’s green fairytale, which had a title that evoked a brisk, healthy walk in the woods: Energiewende."

No data Chris?
Plenty was available, but this report presents Germany's outlook. For example:

Via Chris Uhlmann - “Just last year, at least 100,000 industrial jobs were eliminated altogether. The political promises of the previous federal government for a ‘green economic miracle’ have amounted to smoke and mirrors. In reality, never before have so many well-paid jobs been under threat as they are today.

Yet we have this in the renewables sector:

And this:

Via Chris Uhlmann - "That Germany is facing an industrial crisis spawned by its energy policy is obvious to anyone who doesn’t work in fiction. Berlin’s failure, like Bowen’s, can be measured in the billions squandered to cover the illusion of cheap, green power."

Yet Germany's energy prices have been declining in the past 2 years:

Via Chris Uhlmann - "You could cover the continent in wind turbines and solar panels and spend countless billions on batteries, and without a 100 per cent backup from a fuel source that system will never be guaranteed to deliver reliable power on demand every second of every day of the year. In an electricity system, that is the only kind of power that counts."

We can easily get to 99%, and with V2G and home batteries the 100% is achieved.

Via Chris Uhlmann - "Australia is flooding its eastern grid with high-cost, low-value parasite power, driven not by engineering or economics but by politics."

Completely false. No present energy generator will invest in FF based power because it's too expensive.

Via Chris Uhlmann "At the same time, we’ve vilified coal, the fuel that still supplies the bulk of our electricity, and gas, the only scalable replacement."

Again, completely false. RE+Batteries are scalable. The other point is that coal has very limited capacity for demand response, and gas is extremely costly.

Centre for Independent Studies energy research director Aidan Morrison notes the hub has already gobbled up grants of $70m from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and $45m from NSW. “The proportions of public spending required highlight the depravity of the endeavour,” he says.

In fact all we need to do is shift the $Billions in FF subsidies to RE:

There is rapid growth in wind and solar generation but it is not replacing hydrocarbons, it is adding to the world’s ever-increasing demand for power.

More BS from the journo:

MEANWHILE IN CHINA ...
Despite the endlessly hyped record levels of investment in wind, solar and batteries, coal still dominates China’s electricity sector, accounting for 58 per cent of its generation in 2024. Eighty-six per cent of China’s primary energy comes from coal, oil and gas. That number will not change in a hurry because China is building new coal-fired power plants at the rate of one a week.

Another lie from the journo because coal's share of energy has actually been declining for many years:

and:

China remains the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, accounting for about a third of the global total. Along with India, it contributed 62 per cent of the increase in global emissions last year.

Given that China already accounts for over 30% of global production, and is projected to reach 45% by 2030, it will be difficult for it to lose the crown of biggest GHG emitter, which was previously held by 10% of the western world for over 2 centuries.