South Australia Blackout Report : Green Energy Failure

greens.jpg

•••

A new report by the national electricity regulator has found that September’s statewide blackout in South Australia, was a direct result of renewable unreliable power sources unable to cope with rapid or large changes in frequency, leading ultimately to a “black system”.

Hardly surprising news considering the intermittent nature of weather-dependent wind energy, leading to well-established ‘grid instability’.

Which leads to the ultimate question that “unreliable” energy critics have been asking since the rushed inception of “green” energy as part of the hysterical quest to “Save The Planet” – Why wasn’t the critical factor of grid instability discussed, factored in and ironed out before spending billions upon billions of taxpayers money on the now-failed wind experiment? Who will claim responsibility for the misguided allocation of now proven inferior, useless and failed wind technology?

This is the direct problem faced when big government and statist green central planning gets involved in the commercial sector. Market mechanisms are eliminated, the very mechanisms which promote proper checks and balances to make sure stuff works.

The schizophrenic race for “green” energy has been nothing more than a race by rent-seeking corporatist vampires to suck up unlimited government funds, grants and subsidies.

But hey, who cares about other people’s (taxpayers) hard-earned money when you’re trying to “Save The Planet” right?

When will we learn from our mistakes?

Einstein’s definition of insanity is becoming more and more relevant as we continue to go down the insane path of defunct wind and solar tech:

definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Einstein

Aus SA Blackout report.png

Image via Paul Homewood – NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Report via The Australian :

Michael Owen 11:44AM December 15, 2016

A new report by a national electricity regulator has found that, as occurred during September’s statewide blackout in South Australia, renewable power sources cannot cope with rapid or large changes in frequency, leading ultimately to a “black system”.

Spinning generators, motors and other devices synchronised to the frequency of the electricity system have naturally provided the inertia necessary to allow the system to cope with uncontrolled changes in frequency.

But new technologies such as a wind or solar have no or low inertia. Currently they have limited ability to dampen rapid changes in frequency.

“Finding new ways to provide inertia and respond to frequency changes is where work is required,” AEMC chairman John Pierce said.

AEMC is currently working on five rule change requests to address both immediate concerns in relation to emergency protection, particularly relating to South Australia’s current frequency issues, as well as new mechanisms to allow security to be maintained across the entire system.

Despite numerous warnings to the South Australian Labor government about the risk of frequency problems and increased load shedding, brownouts and blackouts, the state has pursued a renewable energy policy that has seen around 45 per cent of its generation come from wind and solar.

The state’s last coal-fired baseload power station was forced to shut in May because of the rise of renewables, with Premier Jay Weatherill and his Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis both declaring “coal is dead”. The state is now reliant upon an interconnector with Victoria to import coal-fired baseload power.

It has today emerged that a plan by the owners of the Northern power station and transmission company ElectraNet to reopen the power plant as a converter to stabilise the state’s wind-vulnerable grid was abandoned because of the red tape involved.

The power station would be demolished within one to two months but it would have taken at least a year for a full study and assessment on the reopening proposal under government regulation, before a decision could be made on funding.

While there has been no cost estimate released, such a move would likely be very expensive.

ElectraNet is urgently looking at options to stabilise the state’s grid in the absence of the Northern power station.

Mr Pierce said there were challenges ahead in managing system security, which was essential to allow reliable electricity supplies to be provided to customers.

“The changes that need to be made centre on the physics of energy supply, transmission and meeting demand,” Mr Pierce said.

“Many different technical options are emerging in today’s electricity sector and we want to encourage further innovation — rewarding the best options that may mature over time.

“We also need market mechanisms that reward the best outcomes while keeping consumer prices as low as possible over the long term.”

The AEMC interim report suggests changes that include new measures to enable provision of additional inertia for the system most likely through synchronous machines and development of fast acting frequency response services, which might be provided via invertor-based generators such as wind turbines, by energy storage devices and by demand-response schemes.

“This review puts an umbrella over many issues being raised by stakeholders in relation to the power system’s ability to keep the lights on while maintaining its frequency at a constant level,” Mr Pierce said.

“The review will consider both policy mechanisms that are in place now; and analyse how any of the feasible emissions reduction policies may impact the future power system.”

He also said that a more efficient gas market would improve the power system’s ability to integrate renewables like wind and solar by providing fast-start backup for intermittent generation.

“Making it easier to buy and sell gas helps lower supply costs for gas-fired power stations which are now replacing coal generators,” he said.

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the Turnbull government welcomed the draft AEMC report.

“The increasing amount of solar and wind is creating a real challenge to the security of our nation’s electricity market, as they are non-synchronous generation technologies,” Mr Frydenberg said.

“As Bill Shorten and his mates in the Labor states chase unrealistic high renewable energy targets they have failed to take into account the fact that the increasing amount of solar and wind power they are encouraging into the system is reducing energy secruity across the National Electricity Market.

“In contrast, the benefits that hydro, gas and coal have provided, essentially for free, to keep the electricity system secure have been taken for granted.”

“As more intermittent generation comes into the grid, new markets are going to have be created for things like inertia which are essential to energy security.”

He said these issues will be considered by the Finkel Review and the AEMC.

The AEMC is calling submissions by February 9.

•••

Countries Seeing The Light (literally)

Ideologically aggressive “green” GERMANY has spent €1 Trillion Euros, of other people’s money, on Wind and Solar power through the Energiewende program, only to undergo her biggest coal-fired power expansion in history.

German Coal-Fired Power Expansion.jpg

Source : Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND)

CHINA is falsely portrayed by green-energy advocates as “leaders in the push for renewable technology”.

In reality, China setup their own small-scale wind and solar power generation purely to appease the West in a symbolic show of “Green” faith.

The result of China’s symbolic wind experiment? –> China Counts the Staggering Cost of its Wind Power Experiment | Climatism

Where they are winning, big-time, is in the mass-manufacture of wind and solar applications, sold back to the climate change obsessed West.

And the power used to manufacture the 16th Century industrial windmills, ironically, coming from the very coal that the West has condemned, demonised and shipped-off to China so she can open a coal-fired power station every week!

Insanity on a bizarre level.

China’s energy reality

China are opening a new-generation coal-fired power plant every week. –> China 5-Year Plan Confirms Massive Expansion Of Coal Fired Capacity | Climatism

Meanwhile, back in climate change obsessed Australia, they are “Blowing Up” and decommissioning their coal-fired power plants!

Playford Coal Station Blowup Jobs.jpeg

Playford coal-fired power station in Port Augusta — put out of business by Labor’s green policies — had its towers brought down by explosives.

The world sure got that message: South Australia is closed for investment in heavy industry, and so, soon, will be the rest of Australia if we don’t learn from its madness.

Blowing up the Playford station was Labor, Greens and now Liberals saying yes to wind farms and the country’s highest power prices, and saying yes to the country’s highest unemployment, too.

It gets even worse. South Australia relies on a giant extension cord connected to neighbouring Victoria’s coal-fired power station Hazlewood, in order to supply baseload energy when the “wind don’t blow”.

About 600MW or a third of SA’s energy is drawn from Victoria. And as we know, when the windmills failed in September’s statewide blackout, the system flicked to the Victorian coal-fired interconnector and it overloaded leading to Statewide lights out.

So, you would think that increasing coal-fired power capacity or another baseload alternative like nuclear would be necessary to save industry, jobs, reduce massive power-price hikes and to simply keep the lights on, right?

Well in the utopian land of Oz, that answer is a big eco-NO! And hold onto your chair for why…

The Victorian Labor Government is decommissioning Hazlewood as of 2017 in order to ramp up its own defunct renewable unreliable energy program!

Hazelwood coal power station to close with loss of up to 1,000 jobs | Australia news | The Guardian

That definition of insanity again please…

“doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Einstein

16th Century, weather-dependent Windmills have failed as a legitimate baseload energy source.

All they really do is relieve climate guilt for the gullible while diverting trillions of dollars of taxpayers money to rent-seeking corporate vampires.

•••

See also :

Related :


Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace

Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis
.”
– Greenpeace International

It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true
.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

•••

Via NoFrakkingConsensus

Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace

March 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm

Many environmental organizations employ people whose sole purpose is to raise awareness about global warming. The more effective they are at convincing the public there’s an urgent problem, the more money these organizations receive in donations.

Activists are therefore the furthest thing from neutral parties. They have a right to participate in discussions about climate change, but we all need to understand that when they do so they are advancing an agenda.

Since agendas and science don’t mix, environmentalists should keep their distance from activities that are supposed to be scientific. Their mere presence undermines the integrity of the research. It casts a shadow over the data and calls into question the conclusions.

But activists have not kept their distance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) even though this body claims to be a scientific organization. Nor has the IPCC taken steps to safeguard its reputation by keeping a strict separation between itself and green groups.

This is perhaps best illustrated by a Greenpeace climate change publication that appeared in early 2007. The foreword to this document, which focused on New Zealand, was written by none other than Rajendra Pachauri. At the end of his remarks, beside his photograph, he is identified not as a private individual expressing private opinions but as the chairman of the IPCC.

I’ve mentioned previously that the fact that Richard Klein worked as a Greenpeace campaigner at age 23 was no impediment to the IPCC appointing him a lead author at age 25. I’ve also drawn attention to the fact that some of those who’ve served as IPCC expert reviewers are actually Greenpeace employees.

But the cozy relationship doesn’t end there. Bill Hare has been a Greenpeace spokesperson since 1992. By 2000 he was climate policy director for Greenpeace International. According to various Greenpeace blog posts he is “a legend” in that organization, served as its chief climate negotiator in 2007, and remains a chief policy advisor. Yet none of this has prevented him from being nominated – and chosen – to fill senior IPCC roles.

In 2000 policy director Hare served as an expert reviewer for an influential IPCC emissions scenarios document. When the 2007 edition of the climate bible was released, we learned that he’d served as a lead author, that he’d been an expert reviewer for 2 out of 3 sections of the report (see here and here), and that he was one of a select group of only 40 people who comprised the “core writing team” for the important Synthesis Report.

Hare has once again been appointed a lead author for the upcoming version of the climate bible, expected to be released in 2013 (see p. 8 of this 27-page PDF). Keep Reading »

 

VIDEO: Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise speaks to IPA members in Melbourne about the flaws she has discovered in IPCC reports.

http://www.ipa.org.au

UPDATE

Via NoFrakkingConsensus

WWF’s Chief Spokesperson Joins IPCC

April 25, 2011 at 7:09 pm

UPDATE 7 Jan. 2013: Morgan’s online bio has changed since this blog post was written. It no longer contains the key clause: “acting as chief spokesperson for the organization on climate change.” The old version of her bio has been backed up here. A screencap may be seen here.

My upcoming book has a section titled Why We Can’t Trust AR5. The last major Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was published in 2007. It’s known as the Fourth Assessment Report – or AR4 for short.

The latest edition, AR5, is expected to completed in 2013. Its personnel were announced by the IPCC last June. By then that organization had already been wounded by the Himalayan glacier scandal, which involved faulty information published in a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) document. A few critics had also, by that time, shone light on the IPCC’s not infrequent use of literature produced by organizations such as the WWF and Greenpeace.

But the IPCC, it has been observed, is a slow learner. If this were not the case there’s no way it would have appointed Jennifer Morgan as an AR5 review editor.

According to its marketing department, the IPCC is a scientific body that writes scientific reports. If that were strictly true, it’s unclear why AR5 is going to devote an entire chapter to International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments.

for source document, click image & see p. 26 of the 27-page PDF

According to IPCC mythology, those involved in this historic report-writing exercise are the world’s top scientists and best experts. Morgan is a perfect example of how this is utter nonsense. For several years she was the WWF’s chief spokesperson on climate change. She led its Global Climate Change Program and headed its delegation to the Kyoto Protocol negotiations.

Prior to that, Morgan worked for the Climate Action Network (according to her online bio, it’s a collection “of over 200 environmental groups worldwide with eight regional offices”). Currently she’s employed by the World Resources Institute (Al Gore is on its board). In other words, Morgan is not one of the world finest scientific minds. She is a professional activist.

As recently as 10 months ago the IPCC recruited her to help prepare a report that is supposed to be objective, rigorous, and balanced. If previous media coverage is anything to judge by, once it’s released we’ll all be told this report should be considered Holy Writ since “this is what the world’s scientific community thinks”.

Honestly, these people have no shame.

•••

UPDATE

Screen Shot 2014-01-19 at , January 19, 8.06.25 am

Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?

Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ

Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others   in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies

Continue Reading »

IPCC Insider Says That The 97% Consensus Actually Consists Of “A Few Dozen” | CACA

•••

UPDATE

MUST MUST SEE VIDEO »

Laframboise and Topher ~ two superb communicators discuss the scandalous truth about the UN’s IPCC. If nothing else in the climate debate has shocked you, the information in this video most definitely will.

50 to 1 VIDEO PROJECT – Topher interviews Donna Laframboise, former journalist turned investigative author. Donna has critiqued the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s claims about itself, its authors and its peer review process, and found them very VERY wanting…

•••

UPDATE

via Real Science

Shock News : IPCC Publishes Stupid Alarmist C**p They Found On The Internet

Posted on September 24, 2013 by 

Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim

Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.

Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice’s working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was “speculative”.

Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.

Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim – environment – 08 January 2010 – New Scientist

James Delingpole explains the IPCC methodology :

So, to recap: in the course of a garbled phone conversation a scientist accidentally invents a problem that doesn’t exist. This gets reported as if gospel in an influential Warmist science magazine and repeated by a Warmist NGO, before being lent the full authority of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report which, as we know, can’t be wrong because it is vetted by around 2,500 scientists. Then, on the back of this untrue story, the scientist gets a cushy job at the institution whose director is also in charge of the IPCC.

Syed Hasnain, RK Pachauri and the mystery of the non-disappearing glaciers – Telegraph Blogs

UPDATE

via Real Science

I’m 100% Sure That The IPCC Is Lying

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the UN panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s. That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.

Experts surer of manmade global warming but local predictions elusive – World – DNA

They are so sure, that Kevin Trenberth sent this letter out :

Selection_006

They can’t explain the lack of warming, but they are 95% sure that the warming they aren’t seeing is caused by man.

James Hansen wrote this in 1999.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

h/t to Tom Nelson and Marc Morano

•••

UPDATE

UPDATE

UPDATE

Must See YouTube – The Bias Of The IPCC

•••

United Nations and IPCC Related :

See also: