Posts

Media Release: Environment Wins Over Destructive Chalumbin Wind Project

,

The proposed Chalumbin wind project on the Atherton Tablelands in Far North Queensland has been rejected on environmental grounds. This rejection calls the entire net-zero transition and other projects into question. Common sense has prevailed – you can’t save the environment by destroying thousands of hectares of forests as wind and solar projects will.

After local environmentalists made a fierce, years long campaign, which I wholeheartedly supported, Minister Plibersek looks like she is managing appearances rather than the environment.

30,000 hectares of remnant forest will still be cleared across 52 wind farms on the Great Dividing Range in Queensland under current proposals. Destructive projects like the Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro in prime platypus habitat at Eungella must be ruled out. Projects like Smokey Creek Solar that were quietly approved against local protests because they didn’t have a talented nature photographer like Steven Nowakowski to tell their story, must be revisited and put through the full environmental assessment.

Congratulations to local environmentalists for their campaign to preserve this unique environment. The net-zero plan for wind and solar cannot supply our energy needs and will destroy the nature Queenslanders love the most.

The government must stop killing the environment while claiming they’re saving it.

Media-ReleaseDownload
/0 Comments/by

The Great Barrier Reef Is Not Dying

,

I spoke on Green Senator Whish-Wilson’s motion that the Great Barrier Reef is dying — again. This fear-mongering is used to justify the exorbitant amount of money being transferred from hardworking Australians to parasitic billionaires promising to “fix” the climate. Coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef is a natural cycle. Media and politicians are exaggerating the extent of damage to the reef and in so doing, they are causing economic harm to businesses that rely on tourism for their survival.

Human civilisation and the environment are not mutually exclusive and industrial progress, supported by hydrocarbon fuels, has actually benefited the environment by reducing reliance on resources like whale oil and timber. If the Greens want a real environmental cause, they should campaign against the wind turbines that are being built across northern Queensland, which involves blowing the tops off mountains and permanently destroying the natural environment.

This is more than just aesthetics. Green energy is creating sediment that is full of arsenic, which has been locked away in the rocks for millennia. This runoff flows through underground aquifers and ends up in the ocean, poisoning the reef. The Greens are silent on this vandalism to our natural environment and make up rubbish stories about the reef so that they can “pretend” they are an environmental party.

One Nation protects the natural environment – Greens destroy it!

Transcript

Once again those who worship the sky god of global boiling are using their religion to scare the public into holding the line on the great climate boiling scam. Is it still global boiling or have we now moved to global scalding? This fearmongering, this scaring, as I’ve been explaining for many years, involves taking money from hardworking Australians and giving it to parasitic billionaires to fix the climate. 

Senator Whish-Wilson’s latest motion reheats an old, debunked scare: the Great Barrier Reef is dying. In 2016 the Washington Post ran an article titled ‘”And then we wept”: Scientists say 93 percent of the Great Barrier Reef now bleached’. In 2022 the Washington Post ran an article titled, in part, ‘Great Barrier Reef has the most coral in decades’. In 2024 they ran an article titled ‘Fatal heatwave strikes unspoiled swath of Great Barrier Reef’. It went on to say: 

Water temperature data suggests the toll of this event could approach that of 2016, when some 30% of the reef’s corals died after suffering through what were then unprecedented levels of heat stress. 

Can’t they see it’s cyclical? 

Hang on. Wasn’t that 93 per cent? No. That’s just the mainstream media scare figure used at the time to appease their owners: the same predatory billionaires that profit from the global boiling scam. It was never an accurate figure, never credible, yet the Greens repeatedly peddled it. 

In summary, the reef had a serious bleaching event in 2016, and within a few years the coral extent was back to normal. By the way: the first scientifically recorded bleaching was in 1926. Scientific records show that bleaching has been a natural part of the Great Barrier Reef cycles and other reef cycles for millennia. That is fact. This is not some esoteric discussion. These Chicken Little claims from the Greens have consequences. Scare stories about the reef dying cause tourists, including international tourists, to cancel their holidays on the Great Barrier Reef, destroying livelihoods in Great Barrier Reef communities on the Queensland east coast. People instead go to a country where the politicians are not scaring off the tourists. Jobs are lost every time the Greens use the Great Barrier Reef as a political football. There’s not even any science behind their claims. 

At times the reef can be a naturally fragile ecosystem. We know that. Certain naturally occurring events can impact it. The greatest danger for the barrier reef is flooding. Tropical cyclones dump fresh water into a river catchment system that carries rainwater hundreds of kilometres onto the Great Barrier Reef. Freshwater plumes kill saltwater coral polyps, and the event is declared a bleaching event—all natural, all cyclical, quite common. 

What did we have three months ago in Queensland? A severe flood event—entirely natural. What do we have now? Coral bleaching—entirely natural. Don’t take my word for it. Please read James Cook University’s article titled ‘Back-to-back cyclones and flood plume impacts on the Great Barrier Reef’, which confirmed freshwater coral bleaching was recorded along the reef. 

Now the climate boiling scammers are trying to blame this on natural climate variability, so let me give you the inconvenient truth about that. I want you to reference the study titled ‘Great Barrier Reef study shows how reef copes with rapid sea level-rise’ from the University of Sydney website. I’ll publish the link. To quote from the study: 

Using unprecedented analysis of 12 new drilled reef cores with data going back more than 8,000 years, the study shows that there have been three distinct phases of reef growth since the end of the Pleistocene era about 11,000 years ago. 

It goes on to say: 

‘We wanted to understand past reef resilience to multiple environmental stresses during the formation of the modern reef,’ said the lead author Kelsey Sanborn, a PhD student at the School of Geosciences at the University of Sydney. 

It continues: 

The study was an international collaboration published in Sedimentary Geology, which revealed a period around 8,000 and 7,000 years ago when the reef growth slowed as it was exposed to multiple stressors, including likely increases in sediment and nutrient flux on the reef. 

I wonder what could cause the sediment and nutrient flux that damaged the reef 8,000 years ago. Well, it can’t be coal fired power stations, it can’t be internal combustion engines or people living in freestanding homes on quarter-acre blocks, and it certainly couldn’t have been air travel. What could it be? Of course, I have it, eating meat! That’s it! If the local Aboriginal population had just stopped eating red meat and instead grew soybeans, those tropical storms would not have dumped nutrient-rich floodwaters onto the reef. 

Study co-author Associate Professor Jody Webster said: 

We need to understand the past in order to predict the future. This paper and Kelsey’s broader research examine how sea level, surface temperature, sediment in the water, nutrient influx and energy inputs into the reef system affect its vulnerability to environmental change. 

It goes on: 

The reef system survives because of a delicate balance these environmental factors. 

All natural.  

Whenever the balance of the reef is disturbed, a bleaching event occurs. It’s entirely natural. It’s in a symbiotic relationship with other organisms. There’s no doubt that when an unusually hot day corresponds to an unusually low tide, the reef will bleach, and it will bleach from a cyclone event and many other disturbances. That reminds me, I went scuba diving with some media off Keppel Island. We said, ‘See the corals recovering from a cyclone.’ The journalist said, ‘But you haven’t seen the real bleaching a thousand kilometres north.’ There was a thousand kilometres of reef between where we were, with the healthy reef, and their claimed bleaching event. They just ignore the healthy reef. 

For the Greens to use mother nature to promote their climate change scam is wrong—it’s utterly wrong. For reef researchers to pretend reef damage is due to climate boiling and then ask for more money to research climate change is wrong. It’s dishonest and it’s scientific fraud. The truth is that the ocean is warmed primarily from the sun, with a secondary contribution from geothermal activity—fact. The atmosphere—the thing being blamed for heating up and bleaching the reef—only warms the top millimetre or so of the ocean surface. That’s not enough to cause any harm and, by the way, we can see that in the seasonal impact. 

The climate boiling scammers can blame their sky god of warming all they like. They can demand large homes, big cars, aeroplanes, cattle, sheep, clothing, cheap power and so much more be sacrificed on the altar of their climate boiling beliefs. Saying a lie does not make the claimed science real. Repeating a lie doesn’t make the claimed science real. Our weather patterns are normal—entirely natural—and so are the patterns on the reef.  

If the Greens want to be useful, they should campaign against wind turbines—the installation of which requires whole tops of mountains being blown off mountains across northern Queensland right now, disturbing sediment and arsenic that flow through underground aquifers and winds up on the Great Barrier Reef, making these natural flood events even worse. One Nation care about the natural environment because we value the natural environment. That’s just one of the many reasons why we oppose wind turbines in pristine bushland and, for that matter, near human beings. We oppose industrial solar on farmland and on bushland. We oppose national parks being carved up for power lines, especially the Snowy 2.0 abomination. And we oppose land clearing of old-growth forests for any purpose, including grazing. One Nation is now the party of true environmentalism. And the Greens? Well, they’re the party of promoting the political agendas and the pockets of parasitic billionaires over the best interests of the natural environment. The Greens peddle the United Nations World Economic Forum’s antihuman agenda, which is in turn based on a lie—a false assumption. That lie, that false assumption, is that human civilisation and the environment are mutually exclusive. That is the opposite of reality. 

The reality is that, for human civilisation to have a future, we must have a healthy natural environment. History over the last 170 years shows that the health of the environment depends on human civilisation because industrial civilisation minimises human impact on the natural environment. What has human civilisation produced that is so beneficial for the environment? High-energy, low-cost, ultrareliable hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. Before these hydrocarbon fuels, humans needed whale oil for lighting, killing whales. Before these hydrocarbon fuels, heating and cooking needed timber from chopped down trees. The area of land in the developed continents covered by forest over the last 100 years has increased by 30 per cent because we’re no longer chopping down trees to cook and to heat. The best friend of whales and the best friend of forests is hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. 

As a servant to the fine people of Queensland and Australia, I cherish human progress. I cherish human flourishing. I cherish hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. I admire human progress and human initiative. I appreciate human progress. 

/0 Comments/by

Uncomfortable Net Zero Truth Bombs Dropped on the BBC

,

Award-winning journalist & author, Peter Hitchens, exposes the Net Zero absurdity straight to the face of George Monbiot on BBC Question Time.

“…we didn’t just close down our coal fired power stations, we blew them up, we were so certain we were right to do so. At the same time, China even as we speak is building the equivalent of two new coal fired power stations a week. India has a vast expansion programme of coal fired power stations…”

“If you want to live in a country with Net Zero, if you where nobody can afford to heat their house where people have incredibly expensive and non functioning heat pumps inflicted on them, if you want lots of people to lose their jobs because there’s no energy, if you want to be cold all the time… then carry on believing that the demand to go for Net Zero… is intelligent and thoughtful.”

/7 Comments/by

Inquiry Into Wind and Solar Urgently Needed

,

During my recent visits to constituents across Queensland, there has been a consistent request for an inquiry into the wind and solar scam. Jobs are being destroyed and exported overseas where there’s cheaper energy. Cheaper and reliable energy means a more productive country. Australia is turning its back on what we have in our ground for expensive and unreliable technology that we are buying mostly from China. 

No wonder this Labor government is so unpopular. It is doing exactly what the globalists want and wrecking the Australian bush. Our coal production is up and it’s being burned by other nations. China uses 55% of the world’s coal and is approving new plants at the rate of two a week. Australia is sacrificing itself for global climate goals, which are being trashed by India, China and others who are free from the insanity of the solar and wind dog and pony show. 

Chris Bowen and his Ministry for Misery is shutting down agriculture and replacing it with the desecration of nation-killing, environment destroying ‘renewables’. There’s no data to back up this climate fraud. Solar and wind is not the cheapest energy at all. GenCost data is based on false data.

Companies are starting to wind back their commitments to Net Zero. Many people are waking up and seeing the truth and speaking out against the Net Zero scam. 

Some Senators are receiving funding from Climate200, which represents billionaires interested in “climate change” issues. These senators turn a blind eye to what’s happening in pursuit of Net Zero. This total disregard is leading to the destruction of forests and farming communities, as well as escalating energy prices, all of which amount to a troubling transfer of wealth to the already wealthy.  This needs to stop.

Transcript

This is not the first time the Senate has debated the need for an inquiry into the effect of industrial wind, industrial solar and transmission lines on rural and remote Australia. The reason is simple. As I travel through Queensland listening with my constituents, they let me know in very clear language that there must be an inquiry into this scam, into this destruction. 

I want to name and honour and express my appreciation for the people from Victoria through to New South Wales through to southern Queensland and central Queensland and north Queensland for standing up, in rural communities in particular but also, increasingly, city folks. I want to single out two names in particular: Katy McCallum and Jim Willmott. People in this protest movement know of them, and I thank them for their outstanding work. Katy has been a real dynamo, full of information. Thank you so much. 

Australia’s net zero energy transition is a complete disaster. These things are destroying Australian’s productive capacity, taking a coal powered generation capacity that offers cheap, reliable, affordable, accessible, secure, stable energy to industry and to homeowners and families and turning that into a catastrophe—an economic catastrophe, an unreliable catastrophe. Jobs are being destroyed and exported to China. In January, Alcoa announced the closure of the Kwinana aluminium smelter, with the loss of 850 staff—850 jobs!—and 250 contractors. The closure was caused in part by Australia losing its competitive advantage in power. And that’s extremely important. The cheaper and more reliable the energy, the more competitive and productive a country is, and the higher the standard of living and the higher the wealth for everyone. That has been the message of the last 170 years of history. And we are committing economic suicide. 

A report into Victoria’s renewable energy and storage targets, released and then withdrawn last month, stated the following: ‘Achieving net zero requires the construction of unprecedented’—there’s that word again—’amounts of renewable energy in Victoria, more than 15 times today’s installed renewable capacity, according to the current best estimates.’ It continues: ‘Analysis indicates that to meet net zero targets using onshore renewables could require up to 70 per cent of Victoria’s agricultural land to host wind and solar farms.’ Those are their words: 70 per cent. Well, good luck with that, because you’d be starving, watching the wind turbines not even turning and the solar panels cooking the earth. Finally, the truth is out there. 

No wonder this Labor government is buying back water and eliminating major infrastructure in regional and remote Australia—in short, making life tougher and tougher for the bush, and hollowing out the bush. No wonder approvals are being guided through for bug and lab-grown protein. These will be our food sources, once the net zero agenda is completed. If you don’t believe me, go and listen to the parasitic globalists. They’ve said exactly that. 

This Labor government has every intention of turning the bush into one giant industrial landscape of wind, solar, batteries, transmission lines and pumped storage. It’s anti human. The minister for misery, Mr Chris Bowen, is wrecking the bush. The minister for misery, Mr Chris Bowen, is wrecking Australia. The minister for misery, Mr Chris Bowen, is killing people’s lifestyles in this country and killing our futures. We’ve just enough land left over now to grow beautiful quality beef and agricultural products, for the billionaire parasites the Prime Minister is so fond of hobnobbing with. So they’ll shut down agriculture, except for that small quantity for the parasitic billionaires—produce that will, of course, be available to the nomenklatura: the class of bureaucrats, journalists, academics and politicians who promote these measures, with the understanding that they will never be restricted by them. This is the truth of the net zero agenda. 

Now, I travelled through Far North Queensland in January and visited the areas to be desecrated with wind turbines. I learned about the aquifers that run from the beautiful, amazing Atherton Tablelands—amazingly productive land—out to the Great Barrier Reef, taking water under the sea and then feeding it under the reef as far as 50 kilometres offshore. That’s a fact. These ancient aquifers will carry any pollutants—including naturally-occurring arsenic—out to our beautiful Great Barrier Reef. Pollutants are being disturbed by construction of these wind turbines. 

I saw the rock slides that occurred during the recent cyclones, which residents reported as being the worst they could remember. Climate hasn’t changed. That’s natural, up in North Queensland, because of the wet summers. These rock slides extended from the top of the mountains to the road at sea level. This is natural in North Queensland, with beautiful mountains and lots of rain. This devastation is in an area that is part of the same mountain range where wind turbines will be erected. So they’re going to loosen the mountain tops. If the government is not getting up there with seismologists and surveyors to see what caused these rock slides, then the outcome will be more devastation. 

There has been too much looking the other way or turning a blind eye, and too much wishful thinking, in the planning for net zero. There’s been too much blindness—people groping around in the dark, ignoring the data. This inquiry will be a chance to ask hard questions about the real environmental and financial cost to Australia and the real impact on regional and rural and remote Australia. 

I want to read from some notes. I want to honour and appreciate Steve Nowakowski. He was in bed with the Greens. He’s a dedicated conservationist, which made him wake up to the fact that the Greens are not conservationists; they’re just anti human. He had courage. He was a booth captain with the Greens during their election campaigns, very much pushing their agenda, but he had the courage to inquire, to ask questions, to change. He had the courage, once he woke up, to oppose, to get the data and tell the truth. Steve Nowakowski had the courage to speak out. 

There has never been any data from any government agency anywhere in the world, nor from any institute or university, that shows the underlying logical scientific points and empirical scientific evidence to justify this climate fraud. There has been no data for solar and wind. The CSIRO’s GenCost, as other senators in this parliament have attested, is a complete fraud. It is fraudulent. They’re basing their conclusions on false evidence, false data. They’ve fabricated it. They’ve omitted solid cost data. That’s because what they want to show is that the government’s policy of solar and wind is the cheapest. Solar and wind are not the cheapest; they’re by far the most expensive. First comes hydro, second comes coal, third comes nuclear, and then way, way behind come solar and wind. 

I’ll read some of the things that are happening because some people in the world are waking up. This is from an article by Chris Mitchell in the Australian yesterday: Some environment journalists are blind to what’s really happening globally in fossil fuel use and the renewable energy transition. This certainly seems to suit Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who is failing to meet his government’s commitments on the electricity network rollout and power price reductions. 

These were promised by the government, but so far prices have risen, and they will continue to rise. 

He goes on: On almost every energy issue, Bowen and his media cheer squad ignore setbacks in the northern hemisphere where coal and gas are being burned at record levels, the US is winding back EV mandates, two of Europe’s biggest carmakers, Volvo and Renault, are reducing EV investment and the EU looks likely to start to unravel its commitment to achieve net zero by 2050. 

Mercedes is cutting back. Toyota and Honda were never committed anyway, and now they’re openly talking about it. He continues: Thermal coal use globally reached an all-time record in 2023. Global coal exports topped one billion tonnes and coal-fired electricity generation between October 2022 and October 2023 was up—up, up, up—1 per cent to 8295 terawatt hours. Emissions from coal-fired power last year topped 7.85 billion tonnes of CO2, up 67 million tonnes. 

They’re up because they don’t see this problem, because they know the data. Mitchell continues: While coal use fell in Europe and North America, that was more than offset by coal burnt in Asia. Indonesia was the world’s biggest exporter of thermal coal last year— they’ve passed us; we used to be— at 505.4 million tonnes and Australia number two at 198 million tonnes— 

40 per cent of what Indonesia exported, and our production is up seven per cent. But we can’t burn it here. We can give our wonderful energy to other countries and let them burn it and make cheap energy. The article continues: Use of gas globally rose 0.5 per cent last year as China emerged from lockdowns. That growth is expected to increase to 3.5 per cent this year. 

… Hydroelectric generation and biofuels, which can count as renewable energy, exceeded wind and solar in the renewables ledger. 

So the renewables ledger is rubbish; it’s mostly hydro. Even so, renewables globally rose but wind and solar accounted for only 12 per cent of all power used. Further, he says: The Doomberg energy news letter that publishes on Substack went through the latest International Energy Agency coal numbers. It points out China now uses 55 per cent of the world’s coal— 

And we sell it to them. They now produce 4.5 billion tonnes and want to get to five billion tonnes. We produce 560 million tonnes, one-eighth or one-ninth what they produce. He says: … coal makes up 70 per cent of China’s CO2 emissions. 

Who cares, because CO2 emissions we don’t control as humans. The level of carbon dioxide is controlled by nature. I’ll continue with the article: Even the Guardian now acknowledges China is approving new coal power projects at the rate of two a week. 

Yet in much of the Australian media, China is regularly described as a green superpower. Sure, it exports wind and solar components made in China with coal-fired electricity! 

That sabotages our energy, because we have to subside the solar and wind. The article goes on: Writes Doomberg, China is “more than happy to profit from countries willing to sacrifice themselves at the Altar of the Church of Carbon and even happier to recycle those profits into securing coal at prices lower than they would otherwise be if so much international demand hadn’t been voluntarily removed from the market”. 

China is being helped because other countries are taking coal off the market, so China pays a lower price. The article goes on: India, the number three CO2 emitter, pledges to hit net zero in 2070 – “the functional equivalent of never”, Doomberg says. India has announced an extra 88GW of capacity by 2032— eight years away— up 63 per cent from the projections released in May. 

Solar and wind are basically just for show, and they’ve basically admitted that. They’re not going to commit suicide, because they’ve seen us liberate our people with hydrocarbon fuel—coal, oil and natural gas. The article goes on: The world has little chance of meeting net zero by 2050: figures released in December at COP28— the UN’s gabfest— in Dubai showed CO2 emissions up 1.1 per cent last year despite a fall of 419 million metric tonnes outside China and India. China’s emissions rose 458 million tonnes and India’s 233 million. Predictions EVs will conquer the motoring world are proving just as inaccurate as peak coal forecasts.  

That is, terribly inaccurate. The article goes on: Both Porsche and the EU are pushing for delays to Europe’s commitment to phase out internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. 

Porsche chief financial officer Lutz Meschke told Bloomberg last month he believed the EU’s 2035 deadline for stopping ICE manufacture could be delayed. Politico reported on January 18 that the manifesto of the European People’s Party, the continent’s largest conservative political force, wanted the unwinding of the 2035 ICE ban. 

They want it undone, reversed. The article goes on: Volvo, which has been telling the world— bragging to the world—it is moving to electric only, last month said it would no longer provide financial support to the loss-making Polestar electric vehicle maker and would look at selling its 48 per cent stake to Chinese parent company Geely. 

French giant Renault has “scrapped the separate listing of its EV unit Ampere”, according to London’s The Daily Telegraph on February 2. 

Toyota, which environmentalists last year were criticising for being a laggard on EVs, again looks to have made the right call on continuing to invest in hybrid technology. 

I want to point out that the German government, the EU and the UK government to some extent—largely, in the UK—have cut their net zero ambitions in half. Some have even called them off. 

In the time remaining, I just want to point out that people in this Senate receive money from Climate 200, which is funded by Simon Holmes a Court, who is making money off solar and wind subsidies. Teals people in the lower house and teals senator David Pocock get money from Climate 200. They’re getting money from parasitic billionaires to push the agenda for making these parasitic billionaires billions more in subsidies. That is a fact. Then they blindly turn away from looking at the devastation that solar and wind are causing. No wonder people in rural communities and right across Australia are tired of the higher prices for solar and wind, higher prices for electricity and the devastation on our forests and our farming communities. We need an inquiry. 

/6 Comments/by

“That’s not my job” Lemmings Driving us Off the Net Zero Cliff

,

No one in government will take responsibility for the net-zero plan going wrong. Mr Parker who heads the Clean Energy Regulator is paid over $630,000 a year, yet he admits that even if catastrophic errors in claims about Net Zero are brought to his attention, he would do nothing about it. No-one on the panel were prepared to answer questions about your right to receive reasonable power bills or to continue to enjoy a standard of living better than a third world country.

Minister McAllister points out that the department is only responsible for the “broad settings” and that other institutions are there to simply follow their tasks under legislation.

Only One Nation is prepared to face up to the UN-WEF Net Zero agenda and pull the plug on the nation killing scam invented by predatory globalists.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. First of all, thank you for being here. Can I ask whether you take any responsibility for assessing the cost of trying to run the grid on wind and solar? 

Mr Parker : No, Senator, we don’t do that kind of work. Our job, as defined by statute, is to administer various programs in the climate space, but not that one. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Do you do any analysis, measuring or modelling on how much wind and solar actually cost once you include the necessary firming or integration costs, the storage and additional transmission? 

Mr Parker : No, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your job is just to pursue the legislative targets? That’s your statutory job? 

Mr Parker : That’s broadly right. It is in an unofficial space somewhat broader than that, because we have insight, if you like, into industry trends and what’s going on through our liaison with industry, and we are able to feed those views into the policy process. 

Senator ROBERTS: When you say, ‘trends’ what do you mean? They aren’t cost trends. 

Mr Parker : No. We have some information on costs but, as I said, we don’t model those. The sorts of information which we look at are developments in the markets for the relevant carbon instruments, the quantity of investment taking place and so forth. We have an insight into that from our on-the-ground work. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t raise the alarm bells over whether chasing net zero for the energy grid is practically feasible or how much it’s going to cost to get to 2035 with solar and wind powering everything? 

Mr Parker : No, that’s a policy question; we don’t get into that. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t test AEMO’s Integrated System Plan at all—there are so many acronyms aren’t there?—to see if it has any flaws? You don’t analyse GenCost from CSIRO to see if there are any faulty assumptions? 

Mr Parker : We’re familiar with all of those reports, but it’s not our role to critique them, if you like. 

Senator ROBERTS: As the national regulator for this type of energy, even if it were brought to your attention that there are fundamental flaws in the foundational documents for this whole plan, like the Integrated System Plan or GenCost, you wouldn’t or couldn’t do anything about it. It’s not your responsibility? 

Mr Parker : It’s not our role within our statutory remit to do anything about it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Parker. I only ask, because almost every climate related agency I’ve ask, whether it’s supposedly justifying the mad switch to solar and wind or whether it’s actually implementing the policy says, ‘It’s not our job to consider the big picture.’ I’m not arguing that you’re shirking it—I’m not at all. I’m just confirming that you don’t do it. We could be driving off a cliff here and everyone is saying, ‘It’s not my job to think about the cliff, I just drive the car,’ because you’ve been appointed as the driver. Does that terrify you? 

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, you’re now— 

Senator ROBERTS: Does it terrify you, Minister? 

Senator McAllister: You’re now asking the official about his feelings and you’re asking me about my feelings. I can explain to you the policy position of the government, the policy arrangements in the government and the responsibilities. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is responsible for the broad settings in relation to the energy market. They’ve been here this morning, answering questions from senators about the approach they take to policy development for the settings for the energy system. There are other institutions, as you’ve observed, that have either advisory or regulatory roles. The CER is one of them and they’re here and able to answer your questions about the task that they’ve been given under legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr Parker and your team. Thank you, Chair. 

/by

Taxpayer Funded Storage Batteries

,

The Australia Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) will be using your money to partially fund batteries costing $2.7 billion.

These batteries are 2 gigawatt, which sounds impressive, until the officials confirm they will last only 2 hours out of the whole day. Compare that to a 2 gigawatt coal-fired power station that can be run at 95% capacity factor or 23 hours a day.

We’ll get much cheaper power per gigawatt-hour if we just use coal, abandon the net zero lunacy and all of it’s expensive requirements like grid-forming batteries.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. My questions go to the cost, capacity and suitability of large-scale battery storage. I’m going to reference the Large Scale Battery Storage Funding Round from 2022. ARENA put $176 million of taxpayers’ funds into eight batteries, with a total of two gigawatts of dispatchable power. That was in the media release from Chris Bowen on 17 December 2022. For how long could those batteries dispatch that full two gigawatts of power? 

Mr Miller : On average, across that portfolio of eight batteries it’s approximately just over two hours at full power. 

Senator ROBERTS: Two hours at— 

Mr Miller : Full power. 

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total of gigawatt hours that those batteries represent? 

Mr Miller : I think that 4.4 gigawatt hours is the total. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Have all eight of the batteries been constructed? 

Mr Miller : Not yet. They’re under construction—at least half of them are under construction. Some of them might have been completed—a couple of the earlier ones. We announced quite recently that the AGL battery has actually doubled in capacity since we announced the funding. They’ve chosen to increase the capacity by two times. And there are another three or four that are still to be announced as reaching financial close and construction. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many have been built? 

Mr Miller : Do you have that? 

Mr Kay : Yes. Two are currently in advanced construction— 

Senator ROBERTS: So none have been built? 

Mr Kay : None are operational at this stage, but there are two that are in advanced construction and others that are at various stages of planning and preconstruction. 

Senator ROBERTS: So there are two at advanced stages of construction and no others under construction? 

Mr Kay : Yes, that’s right. 

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total cost of those projects—well, they’re still underway. What is the total cost now envisaged to be? 

Mr Miller : As you suggested, correctly, ARENA’s commitment was $176 million. Mr Kay might have the precise number for the capital costs of those batteries, but I recall that our grant sizing was about seven per cent of the cost of the batteries—a substantial cost, in the billions of dollars, for those eight batteries. 

Senator ROBERTS: So we’ll just have to work out the total cost by dividing by seven or eight and multiplying by 100. Something on that media release intrigued me in preparing for today—that media release from 17 December 2022. It talks repeatedly—at least three times—of ‘grid forming inverter’ technology. What is ‘grid forming’? Or is that just a mistake from ‘grid firming’? 

Mr Miller : No. It’s correct language. Grid forming means that those batteries have the capability to provide very high frequency support to the energy system. So you would know that the energy system operates at 50 hertz, so 50 cycles a second. That ability to keep the grid operating at 50 cycles a second is traditionally provided by spinning generators from coal and gas plants. 

Senator ROBERTS: Hydro, nuclear— 

Mr Miller : Not nuclear; we don’t have that in Australia. 

Senator ROBERTS: No. But nuclear can provide it. 

Mr Miller : In theory, yes. If we had that, it would provide it. But, in Australia, that’s provided by coal, gas and hydro. And, in the absence of coal and gas, what we need is resources to do the job of keeping the grid at that 50 hertz frequency, keeping the system stable, providing the right voltage waveform, and also being able to what’s called ‘black start’—have the grid commence operation from nothing—and that is not a service that traditional batteries without grid forming inverters can provide. What the grid forming inverters provide is the ability to form the wave signal of the grid and stand up the grid without any other support. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, correct me if I’m wrong, I’ll just put it into simple language, coal, nuclear, hydro and gas are all synchronous power generation sources, and they’re stable. Whereas, solar and wind are asynchronous and need something added to make sure they’re stable and produce 50 hertz. 

Mr Miller : That’s a fair lay representation of the scenario. Correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I also was intrigued to notice that Minister Bowen’s press release on 17 September 2022 said: 

Over the past decade, we saw policy chaos cause a reduction of 3GW of dispatchable power in the grid, enough to power over two million homes. 

What was the cause of that loss of 3 gigawatts? He’s saying that it’s policy. But was that specifically coal fired or gas fired exiting? 

Mr Miller : I haven’t delved into those numbers. I’m sure they are correct; but I wouldn’t be best placed to comment on generators entering and exiting the market. I’d refer that question to Minister Bowen if he [inaudible] it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Who do I refer it to now to take on notice? 

Senator McAllister: Senator, over the period in question it is the case that 4 gigawatts of dispatchable generation capacity left the system and only one was constructed to replace it, or commissioned to replace it. I do not have the source document for that fact, but I have examined it before and I can assure you that it’s possible to obtain it, so I’ll take that on notice and get back to you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Last question, Chair. Mr Miller, in your opening statement you say in financial year 2022-2023 ARENA approved $544.1 million—that’s over half a billion dollars—60 projects valued at over $3.5 billion, representing the agency’s largest value of funds approved in a single year. How many of those funds were deployed on investments that were needed because of solar and wind? In other words, are they additional costs to solar and wind? 

Mr Miller : As a general statement, ARENA hasn’t supported to any material degree wind projects. Wind has been commercial since the agency [inaudible] 

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, I wasn’t clear in my question. I didn’t mean that you’re investing in solar and wind; I meant that you’re investing in technology or equipment that is needed because solar and wind, for example, is unstable. Or are they to supplement solar and wind? 

Mr Miller : If you take those battery projects, for example, which would have fed into that number of $544 million, absolutely, clearly one of the things we were trying to do in that program is provide supporting technology to allow further penetration of solar and wind. So that kind of work, plus the work we do on grid integration—one of our key priorities—would be to support increasing shares of solar and wind energy. Ultimately, all of the technologies we support are in the furtherance of increasing the renewable energy penetration and competitiveness in Australia. So even the hydrogen work that we do—while I couldn’t characterise it as being needed to support solar and wind; it is a technology set that relies on increased penetrations of cheap solar and wind to provide the energy source to make the hydrogen. So it’s ultimately all related to renewable energy supply and competitiveness. All of that funding would be [inaudible] 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for a very clear answer. So these are additional costs that are needed for solar and wind. I wonder if gen costs from CSIRO incorporates them—that’s not for you; that’s just a wonder. 

/by

Damn the Economy – Net Zero at All Cost!

,

I questioned the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment & Water (DCCEEW) about a recent report from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The report was critical of the department.

The report from ANAO on Governance of Climate Change Commitments states that the DCCEEW CANNOT demonstrate the extent to which specific policies and programs have contributed, or are expected to contribute towards emissions reduction.

We are turning our entire economy upside down to chase this net-zero lunacy and no one can even say if it’s going to do anything.

Even though it was reported that the department agreed with all five ANAO recommendations, the Minister and staff, in response to my estimates’ questioning, said that they do not agree with ANAO’s findings and read out a long list of projections and guestimates.

I asked again for evidence of human-induced climate change and was told the government is committed to the United Nations 2050 Net Zero. I will continue asking about a cost-benefit analysis on Net-Zero, which appears not to exist. And finally, I will request how much this new Labor Department for Climate Change is going to cost the Australian taxpayer.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The Australian National Audit Office said in January—this is from its own report: 

DCCEEW reports annually on progress towards targets, however is unable to demonstrate the extent to which specific Australian Government policies and programs have contributed or are expected to contribute towards overall emissions reduction. 

I find that incredible. We see that solar and wind have taken Australia from lowest cost electricity providers to amongst the highest. There are dramatic impacts on cost of living and adverse effects on inflation and grocery prices. Everything is impacted by energy and electricity, including security and international competitiveness. I’ve just come back from North Queensland, where I’ve seen massive destruction of the environment up there. Some of the large solar and wind projects in Western Victoria and in North Queensland are not even connected to the grid, but we’re paying for them. At your behest, the government is completely upending our entire economy. You are destroying the cheap power grid we had. You’re going to make it nearly impossible to buy a new Toyota Hilux. You’re trying to force everyone into electric vehicles. You’re spending $20 billion on Snowy 2 and you can’t tell anyone whether anything the government has done has actually made a difference. I think that is because it hasn’t made a difference. What quantifiable difference have these solar and wind and other so-called policies made? 

Mr Fredericks: Senator, if it’s okay with you, I might take up the ANAO issue. There was quite a detailed response from the department to that. If it is okay with you, I might ask Ms Evans to give you a response. 

Senator ROBERTS: A response to the ANAO findings. I would also like to know the quantifiable difference these policies have made to our country. 

Ms Evans: I will answer both. In the first part, the department disagrees with the finding that you read out from the ANAO report. We do, in fact, have quite a comprehensive way of reporting on policies and programs and what they contribute to our emissions reductions, which Ms Rowley will be able to take you through in a moment. With regard to the overall outcomes, you can see that—in fact, it is part of the same answer—in our annual national greenhouse gas inventory and all of the results that come from that there is a definite decline in Australia’s emissions over the period that we’ve been looking at. Again, Ms Rowley can give you the specific details on that. I think we are up to about 24 or 25 per cent below 2005 levels at this stage. All of those policies that you were referring to have contributed to those reductions in emissions, which are contributing to a global response to climate change. Ms Rowley will take you through the very substantial way in which we track our policies and programs. 

Ms Rowley: Thanks you, Ms Evans. The ANAO was essentially seeking measure by measure modelling and tracking the impact of every policy over time, which we consider is neither practical nor efficient given that different policies and measures interact, particularly as the policy mix changes over time. They are also impacted by structural changes in the economy. However, we evaluate the impact of policies and programs on emissions during their development. That is part of the public consultation on the design of the policies ex ante, so ahead of time. In general, we prioritise policies that are going to have a material impact on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. That analysis then becomes part of the cost-benefit analysis to inform government decisions. 

In terms of reporting on progress, this occurs through a number of channels. The department and government report progress against the 2030 target transparently and independently through channels such as the Climate Change Authority’s annual progress report, the minister’s annual climate change statement to parliament and Australia’s annual emissions projection report. As Ms Evans said, we also report on Australia’s actual emissions over time each year through our national inventory report and every quarter through the quarterly update. Both the inventory— 

Senator ROBERTS: Just a minute. So what you’re saying, as I understand it, is that various other entities report on this? 

Ms Rowley: Other entities, including the independent Climate Change Authority and the department through its work on the national inventory and the annual projections. 

Senator ROBERTS: But they actually report on aspects of it—bits of it, not the whole lot? 

Ms Rowley: No. Particularly documents like the emissions projections, which are one of our signature reports— 

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions projections? 

Ms Rowley: Emissions projections. It’s an annual report. It tracks and projects Australia’s progress towards its 2030 target. I could use that as an example to illustrate how we look at the impact of specific policies. The 2023 projections, which were published in December last year, include detailed analysis of the abatement arising from some of the government’s key mitigation policies. For example, the safeguard mechanism reforms are estimated to deliver just over 50 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail, including the projected mix of onsite abatement and the use of credits over time as well as how that policy impact is distributed across the different sectors, which are covered by the safeguard mechanism. It also includes details of the Australian carbon credit unit scheme, estimating that it will grow from delivering 17 million tonnes of abatement last year, 2023, to 30 million tonnes in 2033. Again, the projections provide reports on the types of projects, price forecasts and the sectoral split of activity. 

With the additional measures scenario, which is also part of that 2023 projections report, there are reports on the potential impacts of some of the policies that are still under detailed design and development. For example, the government’s 82 per cent renewable electricity target is supported by measures such as the capacity investment scheme and the Rewiring the Nation program, which is estimated to deliver 21 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail across the different electricity grids covered by that target. It also provides quantitative estimates for the fuel efficiency standard for new vehicles, which the government is currently consulting on. Whilst that was a relatively stylised analysis given that the policy is still being designed, we estimated that would deliver a net six million tonnes of abatement in 2030. 

Senator ROBERTS: That is a lot of alphabet soup. Thank you. The point is, though, you have no evidence. The ANAO is not convinced you have any evidence. You can’t demonstrate how a specific policy has made any difference to the production of carbon dioxide from human activity. That is not me saying it; that is the ANAO. 

Ms Rowley: Senator Roberts, you will recall that Ms Evans noted that the department disagrees with that finding. As I outlined, there is a range of analytic work and public reports that the department and other entities across government conduct to ensure that there is a careful analysis of the emissions implications of key policy reforms that have a material impact on Australia’s emissions. I have given you some examples of that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know whether you are aware of it or not, Ms Rowley, Ms Evans or Minister McAllister, but no-one anywhere has been able to provide me with a quantified specific effect of cutting carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. What basis is there for tracking policy when there’s no fundamental foundation for it anyway? So is anyone able to tell me the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of the climate specifically in a quantified way? How are you able to track that when there’s no basis for it? 

Senator McAllister: There are two things. One is that this is a well-worn path between you and me. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yet, Minister, I still haven’t seen that. 

Senator McAllister: Perhaps I can answer. It is a source of fundamental disagreement. You do not accept the science that human activities— 

Senator ROBERTS: Correction. I do accept the actual empirical scientific evidence. 

CHAIR: Okay. Let’s not cut across each other. 

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make sure the minister doesn’t— 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, there is a difference of opinion here, a difference of interpretation of which science is whose. Can we stick to asking the questions and listening to the answers? You can probe it as much as you like. Let’s keep it civilised here. 

Senator McAllister: To assist Senator Roberts, I will put my answer in different terms. This government does accept the science that human activities are inducing global warming. That presents a threat to human systems and the biodiversity that our human activities depend upon. I understand from comments you’ve made previously, Senator Roberts, that is not your position. But that is the government’s position. As a consequence, we are committed to reducing Australia’s contribution to anthropogenic emissions to 2050. That is a position that, as I understand it, is bipartisan. I believe that remains the position of the coalition as well. It is the basis on which we are also committed to that by way of our participation in the processes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

Senator McAllister: The second point I wish to make is that this is not a feature of the ANAO’s assessment of the department. The question the ANAO sought to answer was whether the department is using its resources well to meet those emissions reduction targets. The evidence that has been provided to you by now Ms Evans and Ms Rowley goes to the way that the ANAO engaged with that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Can you tell me or anyone in the department, because you are driving this, the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decrease to our economy? What is the cost to individual Australians? I have never seen a cost-benefit analysis or a business case for this ever. No-one has ever said that they’ve done that. 

Ms Evans: We might take on notice to put down a response that adequately reflects the costs and benefits of climate action in Australia. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Evans. Specifically I would like to know the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decreasing. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to rotate the call. 

Senator ROBERTS: I would also like to know your total annual budget, please. 

Mr Fredericks: Of the department? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’ll take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Power to the People – The National Rally Against Reckless Renewables

, , ,

Renewable energy is facing failure on a number of fronts, not least of which is merit. Engineers and energy regulators – even those who were once enthusiastic about solar panels, wind turbines and batteries – are showing signs of nervousness. The lights are flickering. The costs are mounting. And globally, raw materials are running short.

Read the full article here: Power to the people: the National Rally Against Reckless Renewables | The Spectator Australia

/4 Comments/by

Rally in Canberra Against Reckless Renewables

, ,

A huge response for the rally on Parliament House against reckless renewables on Tuesday, 6 February 2024.

Wind and solar installations are environmental vandals and will never be able to provide the baseload power we need to function competitively as a country.

It’s time to end the wealth transfer to climate billionaires like Simon Holmes a Court, Twiggy Forrest and Mike Cannon-Brookes.

/2 Comments/by

Reckless Renewables!

, ,

There was a rally in Canberra today. Australians came and stood outside Parliament House — people like you and I — and they came here from across Australia for good reason. I spoke with them and it’s clear that many have never protested before.

Their outrage at the damage uncaring governments are doing to their communities, health and enjoyment of life, and to their precious natural environment is so great that they were moved to come here and demonstrate it. Monstrous wind turbines are being installed in virgin forests and heavy machinery is blasting the tops off mountains to lay huge cement foundations for these 275-metre-high wind turbines.

The scars being carved across mountains to get the blades in and the power out are reckless. The seaborne floating wind turbines that will destroy tourism and the maritime environment are reckless. The toxic environmental damage being done for no real energy gain is reckless. There is so much damage to these pristine environments being done on such vast scales, deliberately, and it’s not renewable.

Transcript

Everyday Australians from Far North Queensland to Victoria Plains are protesting outside today for good reason. From speaking with these people, our constituents, it’s clear that many have never protested before. Such is their outrage at the damage uncaring governments are doing to their communities, health and enjoyment of life and to their precious natural environment. They are outraged by wind turbines being installed in virgin forests and machinery blasting the tops off mountains to lay huge cement foundations for the 275-metre-high wind turbines, carving scars across mountains to get the blades in and the power out. Seaborne floating wind turbines destroy tourism and the maritime environment. What about our whales? Only a city Green, teal or Labor voter could see wind and solar installations destroy a maritime or rural vista and say, ‘Ah, that’s pretty.’

Apparently, in ‘Greensland’, steel poles can now identify as a tree. Navigation lights on top of these monster wind turbines illuminate the sky and all those living nearby all night, every night. Soaring birds can’t fly in the five kilometres of air turbulence behind a modern turbine, disturbing migration and nesting. The mountains upon which these things are being built in Queensland are volcanic. Toxic arsenic occurs naturally through these rock formations. Local Aboriginals could have advised where the no-go zones are if anyone had asked. Yet they did not ask. Now the wind turbine industry is disturbing arsenic in hundreds of locations along the range. Arsenic is seeping into underground aquifers that come out—where? On our precious Great Barrier Reef. These are ancient aquifers from a time before sea levels rose to create the current reef. In the environmental impact statement for these wind turbines, aquifers are not considered—incompetence, vandalism or fraud?

Stop killing the environment in the name of saving the environment. Please stop and listen to voices outside. These anti-environment, anti-human wind and solar monstrosities are hideous frauds to nature, to science and to our nation. We have one environment. We are one community. We are one nation.

/2 Comments/by