Posts

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

The Malcolm Roberts Show with Steven Nowakowski

Steven Nowakowski, cartographer, author, nature photographer, environmentalist, and former pro-wind and solar advocate joins me on the Malcolm Roberts Show.

Steven was a Green activist until 5 years ago when he saw firsthand the impact of wind turbines on the natural environment at Mount Emerald, at a pristine plateau of remnant forest full of endangered flora and fauna. Steven’s eye witness experience of the sacrifice of mountain tops for wind factories changed his mind. Steven speaks from the heart. He has a genuine passion for biodiversity and wild places.

If you want to know more about what we’re not being told about the delusional Net Zero targets, this interview is eye-opening. Steven exposes the ‘renewable’ energy sector, its costly failure, and how its impacting the lives of communities and natural ecosystems.

/5 Comments/by

FOI Reveals Department of Climate Change Visual Disinformation Campaign

This mega wind factory was always going to be an eyesore for Illawarra. It’s the first in the world to be proposed on such a huge scale so close to a major residential area. It’s also a major recognised whale migration path and scientists are still studying the negative effects of offshore wind turbines.

Quite rightly, the residents are concerned about the future of their pristine coastline and marine life for a project owned by foreign interests.

These are official government illustrations of what a proposed off-shore wind facility, or minefield, would look like off the coast of Illawarra, NSW.

Freedom of Information (FOI) documents reveal the government department even added haze to the turbines in the original photos (these photos have had contrast added to account for this effect).

The Department of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water called local concerns about the visual effects “misinformation”.

Looking at the government’s official illustrations, those concerns seem valid to me.

Dr Neryhl East Speaking with Chris O’Keefe:

Scientists say many questions remain about impacts on the oceans and marine life …

As the US begins to build offshore wind farms, scientists say many questions remain about impacts on the oceans and marine life – USC News & Events | University of South Carolina

/7 Comments/by

Net-Zero Pipe Dream is Killing the Environment to “Save It”

I’m standing in the middle of an 80 metre wide, kilometres long clearing made for power lines, and these are small ones.

The net-zero lunatics are planning on bulldozing straight lines through national parks, koala habitat and forestry for tens of thousands of kilometres to connect up the many dispersed wind and solar projects to the grid.

Thousands and thousands of square kilometres will have to be cleared, and that’s before anyone clears land for the solar and wind stations.

The net-zero pipe dream is truly killing the environment, “to save it”.

/by

Killing the Environment to Save It, Again – Sea Dumping for Net-Zero

Whether it’s called “under seabed injection of carbon dioxide” or any other ridiculous name, this latest carbon capture scheme is really just about making climate scam billionaires even richer. It’s all in the name of ‘Net Zero’ with exactly zero known about the consequences.

The fake environmentalists can’t leave nature alone – just like the koalas being euthanised to make way for wind turbines, or the damaged solar panels leaking toxic heavy metals into waterways.

Net Zero lunatics are once again intending to harm the environment to save it. Yet it’s all for nothing. We DO NOT and CANNOT, in any way, significantly affect the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide over and above the natural variation.

As seen throughout history, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not determine temperatures. In addition, increased industrialisation does not herald increased carbon dioxide, nor does a global lockdown result in a cut.

Australia must ditch the United Nations World Economic Forum, the net zero pipe dream and all its insane offshoots, including the Environment Protection Sea Dumping Amendment Using new Technologies to Fight Climate Change Bill 2023.

Transcript

As a servant to the fine people of Queensland and Australia, I want to ask a question. If you want a perfect example of how insane the UN’s net zero pipedream is, look no further than this bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. Why? We’re going to spend billions on pulling natural trace gas out of the air and then spend billions more to try and inject it under the seabed and hope it stays there. Science and nature show that it cannot. 

You may have heard of the concept of carbon capture and storage, commonly abbreviated to CCS. The climate activists claim we need carbon capture and storage to save the world. That’s a lie. I’ll get to that later. But no-one really talks about what storage means in these schemes. It seems our government and bureaucrats and our opposition don’t want to talk about the details, because anyone who explains carbon dioxide storage out loud will immediately realise the concept is stupid and dishonest. 

One might think that a bill titled ‘environment protection sea dumping’ would be an amendment saying, ‘You can’t dump things in the sea to protect the environment.’ Think again! The fake environmentalists have decided that the best way to protect the environment is to dump stuff in the sea. Just like the koalas being euthanised to make way for wind turbines or damaged solar panels leaking toxic heavy metals into waterways, the United Nations net zero plan again involves killing the environment to save it. 

Carbon capture and storage can be summarised by the following steps: carbon dioxide—a harmless, colourless, odourless, tasteless, natural trace, atmospheric gas that is generated from the burning of materials containing carbon atoms, including digesting food in animal guts and including our own guts, burning trees and bushfires and burning coal in power stations to produce among the cheapest forms of electricity available for human progress. In the case of carbon capture and sequestration or storage, carbon dioxide is captured at the point of production. Carbon dioxide is transported then via ship and/or pipeline to a storage location. The carbon dioxide—wait for it—is injected underneath the seabed via drilling for storage, theoretically permanently. It’s theoretically permanent because there is no guarantee that the carbon dioxide will stay there. 

History is full of episodes of spills where companies couldn’t contain the oil they were drilling for. Natural leakage from reservoirs has been the case for nature since time immemorial. Even if it were necessary to bury carbon dioxide—and it’s not—there’s no guarantee it will stay there after being hit by some type of undersea seismic activity or even a very common underocean earthquake.  

It’s worth remembering that carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04 per cent of the Earth’s atmosphere. Human beings are responsible for just three per cent of the annual production of carbon dioxide, and Australia contributes just 1.3 per cent of that three per cent. Yet the net-zero advocates tell us that, if we take a fraction of our carbon dioxide and pay an oil-drilling company to dump it in the ocean by injecting it under the seabed, we can save the world. Wow! Amazing! Obviously it’s a bloody lie, an absurd lie.  

Carbon capture and storage is just another scheme designed to make some multinational companies rich at the expense of Australians, and you lot are falling for it, while adding huge costs to power bills that will needlessly continue increasing, killing standards of living and raising the cost of living needlessly. That’s what gets on my goat—you’re doing it wilfully. 

The second part of this bill deals with allowing permits for research into ocean fertilisation. Ocean fertilisation is an untested, radical experiment with our planet’s natural environment. It involves dumping elements like iron, nitrogen or phosphates into the ocean in the hope that stimulated phytoplankton will take more carbon dioxide out of the air. They’re shutting farms down in Queensland, where I come from, because they say farmers are putting too much nitrogen into the ocean. 

One Nation supports research—scientific research, empirical data driven research. We’ll never make any progress unless we test new ways of doing things. Research must be balanced though between the potential risks and the potential benefits. When it comes to ocean fertilisation, an untested form of geoengineering, the potential risks are too great and the benefits are non-existent. 

Let’s be clear what we are talking about here. Ocean fertilisation is the wholesale dumping of chemicals into the ocean with the intention of creating systemic changes to the ecosystem, creating unplanned systemic changes to the ocean—unknown. Unintended consequences are almost guaranteed. If it works, we have no idea how a huge systemic change will affect the environment and the ecosystem. The potential risks are unquantifiable and frightening.  

The supposed benefit—sequestering more carbon dioxide out of the air—is negligible. We do not need to remove more carbon dioxide out of the air. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of vegetation on this planet. No-one has been able to prove to me that human produced carbon dioxide affects temperature more than natural variation does, because they can’t provide that evidence. Ocean fertilisation has huge risks and no potential benefits. It should be opposed. 

I’ll sum up this bill for the Australian people. The UN’s net-zero lunatics are yet again saying they need to kill the environment to save it. The Greens; the teals, including Senator David Pocock; the Liberals-Nationals; and Labor all blindly sign up and hurt families, industries and national security. Australia must ditch the United Nations World Economic Forum net-zero pipedream and all of its insane requirements, including the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. One Nation will be opposing this bill designed to enrich predatory globalist billionaires who donate to the Greens and the teals. Every senator, by the way, should do the same—oppose this bill.  

Now I turn to the bill’s underlying premise. I’ll go through the carbon dioxide reality. We’re exhaling it. Every one of us in this chamber is exhaling it. Every human and every animal is exhaling it. When we breathe all animals, including koalas, multiply the concentration of carbon dioxide 100 to 125 times. We take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at 0.04 per cent and we exhale it at four to five per cent. We increase the concentration 100 to 125 times.  

Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on earth. This is a fact sheet on carbon dioxide. It’s just 0.04 per cent of the Earth’s air—four-hundredths of one per cent. It is scientifically described as a trace gas because there’s bugger all of it. It is non-toxic and not noxious. Senator Hanson-Young called it toxic. That is straight out wrong! It’s highly beneficial to and essential for plants. Greenhouses inject the stuff into greenhouses to stimulate the growth of plants. In the past, when carbon dioxide levels on this planet were four times higher than today—and they have been 135 times higher than today, naturally, in the fairly recent past—it has resulted in earth flourishing as plants and animals thrive with the benefits of carbon dioxide. 

Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless, tasteless. It’s natural. Nature produces 97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on our planet. It does not discolour the air. It does not impair the quality of water or soil. It does not create light, heat, noise or radio activity. It does not distort our senses. It does not degrade the environment nor impair its usefulness nor render it offensive. It’s not a pollutant. It does not harm ecosystems; it is essential for ecosystems. It does not harm plants and animals; it is essential for plants and animals. It does not cause discomfort, instability or disorder. It does not accumulate. It does not upset nature’s balance. It remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it back into plants, animal tissue and natural accumulations—and oceans. It does not contaminate, apart from nature’s extremely high and concentrated volumes close to some volcanos, and then only locally and briefly. Under rare natural conditions, when in concentrations in amounts far higher than anything humans can produce—that we can dream of producing—temporarily due to nature, that’s the only time it can harm. It is not a pollutant. 

As I said a minute ago, in the past it has been up to 130 times higher in concentration in our planet’s current atmosphere than today. It’s not listed as a pollutant. Prime Minister Gillard invoked the term ‘pollutant’, ‘carbon pollution’—it’s not even carbon. It’s carbon dioxide; it’s a gas. President Obama then copied Prime Minister Gillard on his visit to Australia during her tenure. That’s where we got ‘carbon pollution’. It doesn’t exist. So koalas exhaling carbon dioxide are polluters. 

We do not control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We couldn’t even if we wanted to. In 2009, after the global financial crisis, and in 2020, during the COVID mismanagement, we caused severe recessions around the world. In 2009, we actually didn’t have one in Australia because we were exporting coal and iron ore, but, nonetheless, there were global recessions in 2009 and 2020. All of a sudden, the use of hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—decreased dramatically. Exactly what we’re being told to do by the teals, by the Greens, by the Labor Party, by the Liberal Party and by the National Party. What happened to the level of carbon dioxide outside in the atmosphere? Did it start going down? No. Did it even inflect slightly and decrease the rate of increase? No. It continued increasing. Why? Because nature controls the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

According to the UN IPCC, the fraudulent climate science mob, the oceans of the planet contain 50 to 70 times the amount of carbon dioxide in dissolved form than in the earth’s entire atmosphere—50 to 70 times as much than when you invoke Henry’s law of chemistry, which has been known for a couple of hundred years, and the level of carbon dioxide in the air depends on the quantity dissolved in the oceans and varies with the temperature of the oceans because solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans varies with temperature. In the annual graph of carbon dioxide levels, you can see the seasonal variation in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Southern Hemisphere. Carbon dioxide levels follow the temperatures of the ocean, especially the sea surfaces. We do not significantly in any way affect the level, and we cannot affect the level over and above natural variation due to nature. 

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not determine the temperature, unlike what the Greens, the teals, Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals are telling us. There has been massive increase in human production of carbon dioxide from China, India, Brazil, Europe, Russia, Asia and America, yet temperatures have been flat—flat!—for 28 years. Not warming; not cooling; flat. The trend during the massive industrialisation during the Second World War and the post-war economic boom saw temperatures from 1936 to 1976 fall. Over 40 years of massive industrialisation, the longest temperature trend in the last 160 years was cooling. Remember the predictions that we were going to be in for an ice age? In the 1880s and 1890s in our country, temperatures were warmer by far. 

Variation in everything in nature is natural. There’s inherent natural variation within larger cycles of increasing and decreasing temperature, rainfall, drought cycles and storm cycles. The CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the United Nations have failed to show any change in any climate factor, just natural variation. It’s not climate change; it’s climate variation. Every uptick is heralded as catastrophic and every downtick is silently ignored. 

What’s driving this political scam, this climate fraud? Ignorant, dishonest and gutless politicians are enabling scammers making money from it. Consider John Howard. In 2007, I sent him a letter of appreciation for his role as Prime Minister before I started researching climate. During his term, he introduced the National Electricity Market and the Renewable Energy Target, the first emissions trading scheme policy for a major party, and his government stole farmers’ rights to use their property. He admitted in London in 2013 that he was an agnostic on climate science. Then we have parasites like Holmes a Court, Twiggy Forrest and Turnbull keeping it alive, relying on the subsidy. What’s keeping it alive? Teals such as David Pocock and Greens such as Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Hanson-Young, invoking fear and doom, yet never providing the logical scientific points and empirical scientific evidence. I encourage people to watch their speeches and see the dearth of scientific evidence. 

/6 Comments/by

CSIRO’s GenCost is Just a Wind and Solar Fairy-tale!

Politicians keep telling Australia that “wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy” while they force Net-Zero down our throats. As proof, they point to a CSIRO document called GenCost, which supposedly estimates the cost of different types of electricity. Yet, it doesn’t estimate the costs of electricity today.

GenCost uses a whole bunch of assumptions that are favorable to wind and solar to claim they will be the cheapest… in 2030. GenCost doesn’t even include the cost of transmission, one of the largest expenses for wind and solar. Huge transmission costs are the reason wind and solar projects are sitting stranded in the outback connected to nothing. This is the same CSIRO that seemingly knows nothing about Snowy 2.0, which has blown out from $2 billion to over $20 billion for the project and associated infrastructure. They forecast the cost of pumped hydro storage will average less than a quarter of the current estimates for Snowy, the pumped hydro that’s actually being built.

To say I don’t trust CSIRO have the right answers on the actual cost of “renewables” is an understatement. The claim that wind and solar are the cheapest is simply a lie that ignores storage, transmission and intermittency. GenCost is just a fairy tale about the future, not an impartial analysis of what wind and solar costs today.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Welcome, Professor Hilton. I will put some questions on notice about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human production. I would like to question the expert spokesman on GenCost.

Prof. Hilton: We are delighted you are asking questions about GenCost. One of the greatest challenges facing Australia is the transition of our energy sector. I am proud of the contribution that the GenCost report makes in this area. The report has been generated annually since 2018. It has evolved over time to take account of the changing technology landscape and the availability of new data. I anticipate that the report will continue to evolve.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to get to the heart of some of the issues that I see with GenCost. What was the cost first budgeted for pumped hydro energy storage Snowy 2?

Mr Graham: I might take that on notice. I am aware of the recent update to the cost, but I don’t have the original figure on me.

Senator ROBERTS: The original figure was $2 billion. What is it currently budgeted at?

Mr Graham: It is in the order of $12 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct. How long are the tunnels for it?

Mr Graham: I don’t have that on hand.

Senator ROBERTS: It is 27 kilometres. How much of the tunnel have they bored so far in the last year, or just over a year?

Mr Graham: I am not tracking that measurement.

Senator ROBERTS: It is 150 metres. It has been bogged for about a year. When was it initially scheduled for completion?

Mr Graham: I don’t have that on me.

Senator ROBERTS: It was 2021. What has that blown out to now?

Mr Graham: Around 2029.

Senator ROBERTS: Earlier; 2028.

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, the official is indicating to you that he is happy to accommodate your line of questioning. However, detailed questions about the project details for Snowy Hydro are best dealt with in the environment estimates. I know you addressed these kinds of questions to Mr Barnes, the CEO of Snowy. You might direct questions to CSIRO which they can assist with. You mentioned your interest in the GenCost report— you might get better answers about that from the official.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. They are now estimating the cost of the transmission infrastructure—which was left out of the original package—at $10 billion for it to be connected to the grid and be useful. That now makes it up to $22 billion for 2,200 megawatts of pumped hydro energy storage, which is $10 million per megawatt, or $10,000 per kilowatt. We won’t even get into the fact that it is only forecast to put out that capacity for an average of 26 minutes a day. What is the cost per kilowatt of pumped hydro you provided in GenCost?

Mr Graham: The Snowy 2.0 project is incredibly unique. It was approximately 170 hours duration for 2 gigawatts originally, but it is higher than that now: 2.2 to 2.5.

Senator ROBERTS: It is 2.2.

Mr Graham: No other project on the books in Australia that we are looking at has that type of profile. In GenCost we report pumped hydro projects more in the order of 12 to 48 hours, that kind of duration, which is
nowhere near the 170 hours for Snowy 2.0.

Senator ROBERTS: What is your capacity?

Mr Graham: We have a table in GenCost with a series of figures on the cost of pumped hydro. I’ll get the exact data for you.

Senator McAllister: Are you asking what role Mr Graham performs—

Senator ROBERTS: No: what is the cost per kilowatt-hour of pumped hydro you have provided in GenCost?

Mr Graham: I didn’t bring that table with me. I’ll have to get back to you with that on notice. That cost isn’t related to Snowy 2.0. It is related to other projects, which are much smaller.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I understand. In GenCost, what would it be, roughly? I won’t hold you to it.

Mr Graham: It is of the order of $2,500 a kilowatt.

Senator ROBERTS: Snowy 2, which is a real-life project that is not even finished yet, is $10,000. GenCost is built on modelling based on assumptions projected out to the future; is that correct, broadly?

Mr Graham: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t know from GenCost what it would cost to replace our coal-fired fleet with solar and wind today, and all the transmission lines and back-up storage. How useful is GenCost?

Mr Graham: We made the decision to focus GenCost on new-build generation and storage and some hydrogen technologies. There are other processes for, and reports that deal with, transmission. We don’t deal with
transmission. GenCost is designed for people to calculate the cost of building and replacing existing generation. But you can’t go to GenCost necessarily to look at issues around transmission.

Senator ROBERTS: Some of your opponents argue that GenCost is detached from reality. If we look at Snowy 2—I am not implying that you have anything to do with Snowy 2—right from the start, Minister, the
decision to build Snowy 2 was made without a cost-benefit analysis, and with a heavily redacted business case that could not be scrutinised. You have acknowledged that you are basically building models based on
assumptions and projecting them into the future. I don’t think the government has anything on what is going on right now. Is that right, Minister?

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I might get the official to revisit the evidence he has just provided about the way the calculations are developed for understanding the cost of hydro because I don’t think it is as you have described.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we have major solar and wind installations, industrial complexes, which are not connected to the grid. This is the level of planning that is going on at state and federal. They are not connected but they have been paid for, and I think that they are earning revenue. That is the reality.

Senator McAllister: I am not aware of the particular projects you are referring to, but they are certainly not things this agency can assist you with.

Senator ROBERTS: My question to you is: something that is projected into the future based on models and assumptions now is divorced from reality, and we need to know the cost now. Why are we embarking on this
journey with so much uncertainty?

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, you are asking me about energy policy. We have talked about it earlier in the week. We consistently have advice from a very wide range of sources—

Senator ROBERTS: Can you name some of them?

Senator McAllister: about firmed renewables being the lowest cost form of new energy in the Australian context. When AEMO looks at what is required to replace all of thermal generation that is coming to the end of its life over the next decade, they try to model—because they need to—the transmission that will optimally connect the optimal configuration of new generation. That AEMO work is not principally led by CSIRO. CSIRO have a capacity to contribute; I think the official can speak to the ways they do. I don’t wish to frustrate your efforts to have this discussion, but it is not in this portfolio.

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Does the ADF really think electric vehicles can defend our nation?

,

I asked questions of two Army generals as to the viability of military EVs in the field. They spoke of the challenges of recharging in the field, considering factors such as solar charging and the use of hybrid vehicles.

I was told that the technology was not there yet but the hope was that technology would have matured by 2030-35 when the fleet of vehicles may be transformed to EV status and technological problems be overcome.

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: My questions are to do with the Army’s electric vehicles. Since the publicly released information of electric vehicle conversion of the Australian designed and built Bushmaster, has the Australian Army progressed to test the operational feasibility of other Australian electric military vehicles in the field? I understand from Minister Conroy, who gave us a crossbencher briefing, that this is at concept stage at the moment, nothing more.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll begin, and then I’ll hand to my colleague Major General Vagg for any further comments.  The concept demonstrator that you referred to was part of our power and energy work, which involves some studies to understand how we can use alternative sources of fuel (1) to ensure an operational capability and (2) to reduce the logistic footprint that is created by bulk fuel. There are a couple of important points to note. Firstly, we were able to produce an electric Bushmaster, but that was to really test the parameters of power generation and how that work would translate into the design of the vehicle and to really test the
art of the possible.

Of course, the operating environment would probably require us to have a hybrid approach, similar to a hybrid passenger vehicle, with both solar panels and also the fuel that would be required. So it is on a path of development to determine how we can continue to operate vehicles and reduce the logistics footprint and, obviously, the output of those vehicles.

Senator Roberts: What progress has been made? What stage are you at right now?

Major Gen. Vagg: As the chief has alluded to, we produced the capability demonstrator with Thales. One of the limitations is power generation and storage and the distribution — which I think you’d appreciate —

Senator Roberts: Easy to understand that.

Major Gen. Vagg: for operational use. We’ve got a number of studies underway to look at power generation and electrification of various sizes of wheeled and tracked vehicles. Those studies are indicating that the technology won’t be in a mature state until about 2030. We have plans from 2035 onwards to look at how we’ll transition the broader Army fleet as we move across.

Senator Roberts: So the time frame is you’re hoping to put something into operation by 2030.

Major Gen. Vagg: That’s the time when the studies are indicating the technology will be mature enough so we can field it as an operational capability.

Senator Roberts: So at the moment there’s no real understanding based on anything concrete—it’s just studies at the moment. You haven’t got a plan or deadline or date.

Major Gen. Vagg: As I said, from about 2035 we’ve got plans to look at starting to convert Army’s fleets across to electric vehicles.

Senator Roberts: What are your findings on energy density? One of the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels like petrol and diesel and gas is that they have very high energy density—not as high as nuclear, but very high energy density. Sunlight is incredibly low.

Major Gen. Vagg: That’s a good observation. To inform some of that work, we’ve got trials with electric vehicles that are occurring this year. We have 40 electric vehicles—civilian—that are operating in the ACT. From 2024 we’ll look at a series of small, light commercial vehicles that will use hydrogen cells. We’ll use those capability demonstrators to inform further work and how we’ll look to operationalise that.

Senator Roberts: To what stage has the thinking gotten in terms of replacing the current diesel powered vehicles?

Major Gen. Vagg: Again, I go back to my first point. Looking at the levels of maturity for those technologies, we don’t expect that to mature to where we can deploy it as a legitimate operational capability until about 2030.

Senator Roberts: Is there any way in which our concrete operational plans assume electric vehicles, say, by 2035? Are we going to be reliant upon these things being developed?

Major Gen. Vagg: I don’t think we’d be reliant on them being developed, but that’s a goal where we’ll look to do that transition.

Senator Roberts: So it’s a goal, not a plan yet.

Lt Gen. Stuart: If I can describe the approach, there are a whole range of emerging technologies that we need to understand, and then we need to test their application to the set of tasks that we need to provide for the integrated force. In some cases, I expect, those will be successful; in other cases they may not be. What we want is to be informed and take advantage of the developments in technology as they’re developing. We work with both academia and industry to explore the art of the possible. We’re not making any presuppositions about exactly when, because we just don’t have the evidence or the data to support exactly where that technology may be. What we’re working on at the moment in the case of electrification is that we think, based on the advice we’ve received, that technology—noting your point about energy density and the requirement to operate vehicles in operational situations—is probably toward the end of this decade. That is our estimation based on the work we’ve done so far and the advice from experts that we’ve been working with.

Senator Roberts: Have you deployed the vehicle in the wet or in the north or in the desert or put it through any arduous tests, or is it still very much a concept?

Major Gen. Vagg: It’s still very much a concept.

Senator Roberts: What about battery charging? You mentioned that as one of your challenges. I think, from memory, on Friday afternoon the Minister for Defence Industry, Mr Conroy, said that you had some concepts for fast charging. Is that correct?

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll have to take that one on notice. As I say, as part of the power and energy work we’re doing, we’re looking at a whole range of things, which include both power generation and power storage—which includes battery technology.

Senator Roberts: What would power generation involve—what sort of concept?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Solar, hybrid engines—

Senator Roberts: Solar panels?

Lt Gen. Stuart: and those sorts of things.

Senator Roberts: Hybrid using hydrocarbon fuelled engines?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes.

Senator Roberts: You’re not far enough advanced, then, to discuss the recharging question for field operation?

Major Gen. Vagg: No. As I alluded to before, we’re still looking at how that technology matures. That’s one of the principal challenges that we need to overcome.

Senator Roberts: What’s your early gut feeling? Much of the science on this and the application of the science on these technologies is still hypothetical—wish.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I don’t think my gut feeling is particularly relevant. We’ll follow the science and what can be demonstrated and how that can be applied to the work that we are required to do. But we think it makes a
lot of sense to be understanding and to be working with experts on how we can apply new and emerging technologies to the business of Army in this instance.

Senator Roberts: I’m reassured now. Initially, I wondered if we were going to be dependent on something happening in the next few years, and I had visions of extension cords all across North Queensland and the Territory. That has put that to rest. Thank you very much.

/21 Comments/by